User talk:Missvain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sldn37 (talk | contribs) at 19:35, 1 June 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Drama Llama is Watching You
The owner of this page reserves the right to delete trolling and drama at their discretion.

Visit the Archives





Deletion review for Hungarian Testing Board

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hungarian Testing Board. 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. Sldn37 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Closing AFDs early (again)

You previously said you would stop - but you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Grothaus after only 3 days. Why? GiantSnowman 11:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning User:GiantSnowman! As you can see in my summary, it is per WP:SNOW. As the snowball clause states, it's likely a snowball's chance in hell that the sources you hope you'll be pinged about will magically appear. The group commenting, the majority, are experienced editors regarding sports subjects and I trust the growing snow consensus. I will not "stop" closing early discussions if they are warranted through speedy or snow (or if there is some crazy exceptional situation). Have a great day! Missvain (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is to be gained by closing them early though? Or, to look at it another way, why not leave it to run the full 7 days? GiantSnowman 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably my OCD? Those of us who process AfDs - like, literally four or five editors at this point, if that - all have our way of doing things. Some of us look at a sportsfigure getting five, six, seven, eight "deletes" with legit rationale and we trust the editors making those comments and we say "Eh, let's close it early." Others might let it ride out. We all have our ways. On the flipside, I could ask you why it bothers you so much? But, it won't really change my processes. Have a good one and thanks for contributing to AfD! Missvain (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for Giant, but it bothers me because it prevents sufficient discussion and practically ensures deletion. Same thing I spoke to you yesterday about, concerning the rapid deletion of articles as well. Not all users are on Wikipedia daily, let alone weekly. Deleting an article quickly can ensure that input from the author or other individuals in the community remains unheeded. Knightoften (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If y'all believe that the outcome would change with more discussion, WP:DRV is thataway. Otherwise, arguing that discussions should be kept open for the sake of process is why SNOW and WP:EARLY exist. (To me, this AfD looks like a clear-cut SNOW.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed - That's how I feel. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Knightoften:. Just let it run for the 7 days! GiantSnowman 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just pointed out that our deletion process contradicts the idea that all AfDs should run the full seven days. And again, if you disagree with an outcome, DRV is available. Otherwise, it's time to drop the stick. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I don't know where you're getting that from; it's the opposite. Our deletion process states: "In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days (168 hours) to allow interested editors adequate time to participate."
Snowball only applies when the "outcome of the deletion discussion is, or has become, almost certain, such that there is not a "snowball's chance in hell" that the outcome will be anything other than what is expected." It is not to be used to "close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon."
We need more courtesy in the community; you can't expect us to DRV every single time. Cheers! Knightoften (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Roche

Hola. Can I close it? I just did my first close yesterday (I was feeling brave, see?) and now have the heady scent of AfD closure in my nostrils!!! *beats chest, roars* - seriously, it's pretty much just a procedural close. I withdrew my vote and so could close as keep, no? What do you think? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, nom withdrew per your request so I did my SECOND EVER close. Oh, the madness of it all! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roofit Solar Energy draft rejected

Thanks for reviewing my draft article about Roofit Solar Energy. It says the reason for rejection is that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Could you please give me a few specific examples so that I can improve and resubmit it? Thanks. Tea Mariamidze (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tea Mariamidze! All of the sources you used, or at least they appear to be, primary sources. You can't use those to establish notability per WP:CORP. You can find examples of what reliable secondary sources are here. Further questions can be asked at WP:TEAHOUSE. Cheers! Missvain (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-urgent: Would like a user to stop badgering me.

First, thanks so much for opening that sockpuppet investigation! Those socks were really bothering me, but I had no idea what to do about it. I'm still amazed that you managed to figure out exactly what I was thinking was happening. Now on the same AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Dattani, I have so many times told JoelleJay that I'm feeling badgered, and I have even changed my !vote from "keep" to "speedy delete" because not only am I getting overwhelmed with all the replies and pings I was getting, but also if that user is so adamant about deleting the article, the article may benefit from waiting some time until the notability criteria are more "indisputably" passed.

However even after changing my !vote to delete, which is what JJ was pushing for, I keep getting badgered further and told something like "if you don't want to be badgered then don't reply to me". The user left some scathing remarks in two responses last night but I didn't reply to them because I was hoping the page could get deleted sooner rather than later, in order for the badgering to stop. I said on their talk page that I would be okay for the article to get deleted (which is what they wanted!), and asked in what I thought was a nice way "if I don't reply to your last two pages, can we call it a night and let the article get deleted?" and now they accused me of HOUNDING (in the AfD discussion rather than elsewhere, which I also thought was off-topic).

If you look at what I wrote on their talk page, and the one 8-word comment I left on another AfD where I just said "JoelleJay, be careful not to badger the user", I hardly think you would think this is HOUNDING since it was just one AfD discussion which I happened to come across myself (I participated in a lot of them recently!). I also didn't even know what HOUNDING was at the time. I would very much appreciate if the AfD could be closed now since with my "keep" retracted, it seems everyone is okay with "delete" including me (the article's author). The article can be created later when (and if) the notability becomes undeniable. I would also like the user to stop badgering me. I would just like to move on and not have that user keep investigating every single thing I'm saying.

Thank you so much for all your help with everything, it's amazing how much you're doing for the community! I was bothered by this badgering for a few days but didn't write to you because your main page says "this user is busy in real life" but now it's getting to the point where, I'm getting replies from this user at all hours of both night and day. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Quesabirria

Hello! Your submission of Quesabirria at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hog Farm Talk Hog Farm Talk 05:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff

Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff Ashley509 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A request to reconsider the deletion of the 'Hungarian Testing Board' page

@Missvain:@MB:@Explicit: I would like to ask if you might reconsider the deletion of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Testing_Board. on 24 of May. There was also a previous version of this page deleted on May 1st, but the reasons for the original deletion aren't clear to me. For your information, several sister organisations of the Hungarian Testing Board in other countries have Wikipedia pages containing very similar content:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Testing_Board

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Testing_Board

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_and_Slovak_Testing_Board

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Software_Testing_Qualifications_Board

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_New_Zealand_Testing_Board


I'm not sure why the Hungarian Testing Board page doesn't reach the same levels of notability as these pages? I'd be happy to make any changes you request to make the proposed pages more suitable for acceptance.

Thank you for your time and any advice you can give me.

Sldn37 (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidn37, WP:GNG explains that articles must have in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I have proposed that the articles above be deleted as well (the ones on this Wikipedia). Articles in other languages are controlled by the policies of those Wikipedias. Even the article on the parent organization is poorly sourced with 5 of the 7 references going to the organization's own website. MB 13:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:MB for chiming in. Also, Sldn37, I do not plan on undeleting that article. If you wish to challenge the deletion you can attempt to have the AfD overturned here. However, I don't think the outcome will weigh in your favor due to the subject failing general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:MB and User:Missvain for taking the time to reply to my question. I take on board your reasons for the page deletion. However, I would like to remain optimistic about the value of this page, so will follow User:Missvain's suggestion to request a Deletion review. I might also try and improve the sourcing of the parent organization's page--thanks for the heads up on this issue.

Sldn37 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the this read now ⏩➡️ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff

You think the Draft is ready for an other review ➡️⬇️⤵️⤵️

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff Ashley509 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley509 - It appears User:Theroadislong has already reviewed the article. It appears Kadda Sheekoff is not able to have their own Wikipedia article at this time. Thanks and I hope you'll edit other content on Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennie Matthias

Hi Missvain. I wanted to share a few concerns about the blocks you made related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennie Matthias. I don't necessarily think that they should be unblocked, but I noticed that before you blocked those accounts, you had already expressed an opinion at the AfD—as a result, I think you are WP:INVOLVED with respect to that AfD. Additionally, I ran a CheckUser on the three accounts there, and based on that information, I would say there is a good chance that the three accounts may be three separate individuals. To be sure, CheckUser can't rule out the possibility that one of those individuals recruited the other two to influence that discussion, which is still against Wikipedia policy per WP:MEAT—because of this, I don't exactly think the blocks were unjustified per se. In the future, I would just report to WP:SPI instead of blocking myself. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that feedback and your intel Mz7 - even more so handling it with good faith. I'll probably just go through SPI to be safe next time. If it does warrant an unblock, I will defer to you to make that decision. Missvain (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Thank you for you attempts to receive more input in this AfD discussion. I believe that more "votes" were received but that no consensus was reached, because most of the "Delete" and "Merge" comments contained no legitimate rationale to support them. In my view the central theme of the input from people espousing "Delete/Redirect/Merge" is typified by this statement: "Can't see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions." Variations on this unsupported opinion are found in three other comments. On the other hand, the idea that the UIUC's response is close to unique is argued, with support, by the "Keep" commenters, and is strongly supported in the article itself.

There are lots of ideas about how to merge the article, but do you see an informed discussion or rationale for the need to merge it? Do you put weight on a comment saying "doesn't feel like a topic for an encyclopedia"? Do you believe that the article reads like an advertisement (which is mentioned in multiple Delete/Redirect/Merge comments). These "advertisement" comments are about the only ones which come close to saying something specific about the article, right? In summary, what do you consider to be the central ideas behind a consensus for a need to "Merge" this article (as opposed to ideas about how to merge it)? Thank you, CWBoast (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CWBoast - If you don't think it should be merged, feel free to speedy renominate it for delete, or, preferably have a discussion on the appropriate talk pages with interested parties regarding if a merger is needed and if you should just redirect. Missvain (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My intent, in asking all those questions, was to learn whether there is any chance of retaining the article, as an article, i.e., "Keep"ing it, instead of "Merge"ing it. I think that there is an appeal process for that, called (Deletion review), right?. But before even considering that as an option I wanted to try to learn something from you about the tricky issue of a "vote" versus a "legit rationale" -- a phrase I see on your Talk page. I believe that those who espoused options other than "Keep" provided very little in the way of legitimate rationales, typified by the comment I quoted above ("Can't see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions"); do you consider that a legitimate rationale? If I'm out of line to raise this with you, please tell me; I appreciate the huge amount of work involved in the AfD process, and I don't want to bog you down inappropriately. CWBoast (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CWBoast - It seems this might be a newish process for you. I suggest if you want to have the article kept, you go through WP:Deletion review - I never take it personal. I have no attachment to the content on Wikipedia that I review in AfD. The keeps were not compelling - you appear to have a deep investment in this article because you wrote it, which 95% of the time, from my experience, the editor who wrote an article never wants their article/creation deleted. The other keep arguments basically stressed how important the saliva test was. Pretty much what User:Love_of_Corey said was true - this article is about the entire response the university had to COVID. Not just the saliva test, but, all the keeps stressed that test over and over again. I also did not find the sources provided by Feminist enough to compel me into believing an entire, huge article about the University's response subject merits it's own article. The saliva test is the only distinct thing that stands out about this University's involvement in COVID-19 - the rest is par to the course as to what other colleges went through - and they don't have articles about their responses. If I wouldn't have relisted this AfD, I probably would have deleted it. So, a merge is an WP:Alternative to deletion and a way to just include the most important parts - about the saliva test - into an article already summarizing Illinois' response to COVID-19. I'm sorry, but, I am not going to keep this article. Missvain (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Wark why was this relisted?

I'm puzzled how this warranted a relisting, as the only 4 editors to comment, all felt it should be kept, and the nominator is by their own admission not experienced! Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beartooth Radio

Per your goot faith deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beartooth Radio can you please check the delete !vote claims of zero RS against the sources in the article. Thnkyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark - Sure, RS but - these are passing mentions - not significant coverage[1][2][3] and the techCrunch piece barely passes for "significant" independent coverage, it includes a Q&A and reads like a competition.[4]. Treehugger is a website in which almost anyone can be a contributor - like Forbes or Huffington Post. And Crunchbase is just a business profile, not a reliable secondary source. It surely appears more like a puff piece collection than anything else. I'm sure if you rewrote tha rticle with significant coverage in RS than perhaps it would be OK. Nothing convinces me that Beartooth Radio merits its own Wikipedia article at this time, sorry. Missvain (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you are not convinces at this time can you please REFUND to draft (or userify) the article together with its talk page for possible further development. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark - No problem! You can find it here: Draft:Beartooth Radio. Thanks for all your contributions! Missvain (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the restore. Unfortunately there are who issues. Firstly there are missing revisions from that restore which gives a number of issues, not least of which are attribution issues, which can be really important. Can you please ensure all reversion are properly restored .... it looks like for done a cut and paste leaving the content attributable to yourself!. Can you also confirm there was no talk page, that is also important and should be restored at the same time. (Mostly the talk pages contains nothing, on a rare number of times is is very significant. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark - Fixed. There was no talk page. Missvain (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing and approving the de Franssu article. I learned a lot about the Wikipedia process. Next stop, reggae. KRL219 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Humbled by your kind words! Make sure to visit WP:TEAHOUSE if you have any questions (no matter how small) about editing. Can't wait to see your contributions to reggae! Missvain (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack

Hello Missvain, may I ask why or on what reasoning you deleted the article "2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack"? Because I was under the assumption an admin would properly assess the validity of the votes and not base their decision off the actual number of votes. For example Wikipedia:Notability (events) states "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"." For the 2009 Istanbul Molotov Bus Attack, it was not just a simple case of a "molotovs being thrown at a bus", which may I note that user SmartyPants22 pretty much hit and ran with that argument.

The comments seem to be pretty much ignorance and personal opinions more than actual valid arguments, this should have been clarification not to delete based off this. You also extended it twice, but got no further comments, I think the lack of valid arguments should have warranted not to be deleted, rather than being deleted. One argument was "Insignificant event. It didn't get in-depth coverage and it's not notable per" this is factually untrue, in Turkey there has been rallies and the topic brought to the Turkish parliament, the fact that the Turkish secret police is involved makes it interesting and also unusual like I mentioned above. So that very statement is grossly false and was misleading to say. As per the recommendations "bad faith" comments should have been ignored.

The arguments were not valid grounds and being out gunned should not be a valid reason to get something deleted. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads" Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus & also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_notable/Just_not_notable The users SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 grounds for deletion is supposedly notability which as per the reference above is not a valid reason to just simply delete the article, (if that was even their supposed reasoning).. So I really think you should reassess this please. TataofTata (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I understand how frustrating it can be to have an article deleted. It has happened to me! First, when you talk about another editor, please ping that editor. We try to be transparent on Wikipedia. So, I am going to tag User:SmartyPants22. I am also going to tag User:DoubleGrazing, User:Ahmetlii, and User:El_cid,_el_campeador. I know no one wants to "make assumptions," but, as someone who spends a portion of her day reviewing upcoming AFD closures and day of AfD closures, I can only assume that User:SmartyPants22 was basing this on WP:NOTNEWS combined with WP:GNG. The consensus was delete - only two people participated and for some cases, that is enough for me to garner consensus as an experienced, reviewing administrator of AfDs. I based my decision on the notability guidelines of WP:NEVENTS, specifically presented by User:Ahmetlii. Also, your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS did not convince me that the article needed to be kept. You also cannot argue that "it's still talked about" etc as reason for keep. I also do not see anyone making bad faith comments. It appears you are allowing yourself to be deeply emotionally connected to the subject and article, which could appear as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I suggest, since you are displeased with my decision, you take it to WP:DELETIONREVIEW. Have a good day. Missvain (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, Missvain. I'm only here to say that I've no horse in this race, but I do think that the AfD ran for a sufficient length of time, and was closed appropriately, so I've no issues with any of it (FWIW, coming from a non-expert like yours truly). Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for weighing in DoubleGrazing! Missvain (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for notifying me. You are correct in stating that my nomination was based off of WP:NOTNEWS (my fault for making my nomination a bit vague). All I can say is that I nominated it based off of my perception off the article, and as is stated above, the nomination gained a consensus which is out of my hands. Best wishes − SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for weighing in SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22! Missvain (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missvain&oldid=1026352841"