User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

FAR for Uncle Tom's Cabin

I have nominated Uncle Tom's Cabin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

As there has been no progress, I have reinstated Wikipedia:Featured article review/Uncle Tom's Cabin/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I had a personal issue which prevented me from finishing my work in a timely manner. That said, I've done a ton of research and will try to integrate that into the FAR process. My apologies for not getting this done when I said I would. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi SouthernNights! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is allowing casual racism against Muslims, how can we prevent that?

"Barbaric terrorist Muslims killed innocent civilized Christians"

I am reaching out to you and I literally selected you randomly. Just from the list.

There is casual racism towards Muslims on Wikipedia and it's converting it to a very powerful propoganda tool.

Anti-Muslim sentiment in the West doesn't need more support.

They are turning a tragedy into political defamation campaign, and pollute Wikipedia with it.

Just check my talk edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence

What can we do about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:5D4E:2BD0:5243:8508 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Old orphaned AfDs

At my talk page response, I wrote out a few paragraphs on this -- there were only 170 orphaned AfDs from the last decade, of which I closed the vast majority and relisted a dozen or so because the nominations seemed to be actually worthwhile. I don't think it's worth going through and holding an RfC to determine a new policy just so that these dozen pages can be discussed and closed, and renominating them would waste much more effort than keeping the same noms. Is it possible to just reopen them and let them play out normally? jp×g 17:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page before I saw this comment. I'd prefer not letting them play out b/c it'll cause confusion among so many editors -- you'll keep getting people asking what's going on here or wondering if the AfDs are a glitch or mistake. And I'm not sure how to decide if an AfD has reached consensus if some comments are a decade old and others are brand new. But that doesn't mean you have to bring them up for new AfDs. Just let other editors do that if they feel there's a need.@ SouthernNights (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suril Shah (3rd nomination)

Hello, SouthernNights,

I saw your closure of this AFD and I agree with your comments even though I have already closed some of these AFDs as "Keep". But there was one that I was going to close as the consensus was to "Delete" and then I realized that a new editor had removed the AFD tag from the article years ago so even though the AFD had been reopened, current editors to the page would have no idea that the discussion was occurring. And jp continues to add a few old AFDs every day to the daily log.

Maybe we should have a discussion on a policy page somewhere about how to handle these cases and whether they should continue to be relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I now see that you did procedural closes on a number of other reopened AFDs on the same basis. Maybe we should do the same on the relisted AFDs that are still open. If this is the action to be taken, maybe jp should be asked to stop relisting these old AFDs from now on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I had a little series of pontifications on this earlier: when I found these, I considered bringing it up at WP:DFD or something, or making an RfC in the appropriate places, since policies and guidelines are completely silent on the issue of AfDs that go without formal closure for extended periods of time. The meat and potatoes of it, though, is that these are extremely rare occurrences. From the years 2010 through 2022, out of hundreds of thousands of deletion discussions, there were only about 160 of these weird stragglers, which I went through and processed (adding to the appropriate logpages and closing) in a couple days. Even out of these 160, the vast majority of them were either jokes, trolling, or obvious mistakes (like an AfD page whose only revision was an unsigned comment saying "This page shouldn't be deleted"). There were only a couple dozen coherent, good-faith attempts to nominate an article for deletion. I relisted a couple of them without issue, so I decided to just go forward on the rest -- it didn't seem like a good use of everyone's time to formally hammer out a whole new policy for something which would only ever happen a dozen times. Of course, since then, you two have convinced me otherwise, but there's basically no situation in which I expect this to be relevant in the future. In the next decade, I estimate there will probably be less than ten of these year-plus AfD orphans (bots and patrollers are now quite adept at finding these and listing/closing them properly). jp×g 02:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies to Liz and jp and for the slow response. I've been away from Wikipedia a good bit in recent days and the same will happen in the coming week. Anyway, I agree we need a policy in this type of situation. While the policy may not take effect before the current issues are wrapped up, it'll give guidance on what to do the next time this happens. Does someone one to try drafting a policy and seeking comments on it?--SouthernNights (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I came up with a little thing for Wikipedia:Deletion process, although a few people at the talk page section for it (Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Preposterously_old_AfDs) seem to think it is unnecessary. jp×g 02:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You deleted Claudio Domenicali

I see you deleted the page I created for Claudio Domenicali (the CEO of Ducati). If you had spent 2 seconds clicking on the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Claudio_Domenicali you would have seen that the CEO of Ducati is a guy called Claudio Domenicali. Well done, a great use of your time and mine. You're a hero. Brian Fenton (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

See the warning I've placed on your talk page about personal attacks, especially since you also did this to another editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Thank you my friend, I wish you and your loved ones a Happy and Blessed New Year!--Tony the Marine (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Help me

@SouthernNights: Can you prepare a new form of Meena page? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I can help because I'm not familiar with the Meena people's history or the scholarship on that topic. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Chandos Portrait

Hello!

I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you reverted my edit on the William Shakespeare page, claiming that the wording had been decided by consensus on the talk page. I don’t doubt you at all, as it seems you are a very well seasoned editor for that page, but would you please link me to the discussion(s) concerning that issue? I haven’t been able to find it even through the archives, so perhaps I missed it. Thank you. Dantus21 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Dantus21, thanks for your message. William Shakespeare is one of Wikipedia's most prominent and high profile featured articles. As such, the current form of the article is the results of a long-running consensus among editors. Feel free to bring up your proposed change on the article's talk page. If a consensus forms there to make the change, it will happen.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights Sorry if I was unclear in my initial message. I was not concerned about having to bring up changes on the talk page. Rather, I was curious as to where I could find these discussions concerning the lead image caption. Again, there is a good chance I missed it in my searching through the Shakespeare talk archives, but I would like to see myself so I could get a better understanding behind the caption rationale. Perhaps I might be convinced myself! Thanks. Dantus21 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights Anything you’d like to say about this? Dantus21 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Learn to recognize when people have already given you an answer. If you want to make this change seek consensus. I'm not here to do your work for you. SouthernNights (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I see how it is. Ultimately I can’t force you to give me the source of consensus, but isn’t it rather strange to make a claim without giving evidence, even if said claim was true? Is it considered doing work for others to have to back up your claims with evidence? If it is accepted on Wikipedia for editors to make claims on what was agreed upon without backing it up, then I must say it is disappointing. Oh well, all the best :) Dantus21 (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair. My error

That is why I like deletion to be a double key process. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Owen Purcell Article Deletion

Hi there, today the article I wrote on Owen Purcell (curler) was speedy deleted for violating section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, no indication of importance. I believe the article did indicate the importance and was wondering if I could retrieve the article to make improvements upon it.

Thanks. JackIb06 (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's possible Purcell will meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports one day, but for now it is too soon. When I did a Google News search on him, only 17 articles came up -- all of those articles were passing references to him with no feature profiles or deep dives into who he is. If you are certain you want to try again, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and create the article there. Perhaps you can convince the editors there that Purcell has notability. Sincerely, --SouthernNights (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, is there any way to gain access to what had been written in the article prior to deletion? JackIb06 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Once you create a draft article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, link it here and I'll drop in the old copy.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Owen_Purcell JackIb06 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Good luck.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! JackIb06 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

JackIb06: As a note, you're going to have to add many more citations and proof of notability for that draft to have a chance of being accepted. If you leave it as what I speedy deleted, I doubt it will survive. Just FYI. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Area Scatter

Hi! If you remove a G12 tag from a page, as you did at Area Scatter, would you please make sure that you do something about any copyvio that is or was in the page? If it's still there, please either remove it yourself, or blank the page and list it at WP:CP; if it's been removed, please request perform any necessary WP:revision deletion. Thanks! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Aargh, just realised you're an admin, please excuse me, obviously you already know all this. But my request stands: please don't leave copyvio in a page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

My analysis of the alleged copyright violation claim showed that this isn't a copyright issue. For the most part the article uses facts attributed to the cited sources, which isn't a copyright issue. While there are a few phrases used in the article that also exist within the original sources, a minor rewrite and use of quoted material can fix this. I'm now discussing this with the admin who put the new copyright vio tag on it.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again! We seem to be slightly at cross-purposes – I am that admin. With all respect, I can't agree that there isn't a copyvio problem here – much of the text is directly copied (see here and here), and more is WP:close paraphrasing. As I understand it, if the source reads " ... moving his body in an unusual yet fascinating manner ... He was by all means, the first and one of the few Nigerian transvestites to appear in mainstream media ..." or " ... disappeared for about 7 months and was not seen throughout the period only to reappear ... ", then our article may not carry the same passages of text. It can have other text that expresses the same ideas, but not the form of words used in the source(s). Marginal changes such as altering " ... Strikingly though, he was widely accepted at the time ..." to " ... Surpassingly [sic], he was hugely accepted as at that time ..." constitute close paraphrasing, also unacceptable. To be honest, I think may of our colleagues would have deleted it as G12, though I think your call on that was right – not quite all text is affected. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

LOL. I posted too quickly without checking who I was speaking to. My bad. Anyway, I appreciate you sharing your analysis. Always good to see a different analysis on stuff like this. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind undeleting Edmund Burke Society

I noticed you deleted Edmund Burke Society, which was only made a redirect after a relatively-inexperienced account renamed the page. They then blanked the redirect, which someone tagged as A3. As such, I believe neither A3 nor G7 applies, and the redirect should be restored. The Edmund Burke Society and Burke Society both redirected there. I have no idea as to whether the rename is reasonable (I suspect perhaps not?) but at the least the redirect should be restored, if not the original title. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The speedy delete was valid b/c the editor who created the redirect also blanked the page, all in the same day. That said, I also see that the editor had moved the page because of possible confusion of the article's title with other Edmund Burke societies. To resolve the issue I've created a new Wikipedia:Disambiguation page there. This way there is no confusion. SouthernNights (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI, redirects as a result of a page move aren't valid under WP:G7 unless they were the "the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move." I'll restore those redirects (cc Liz). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

For the redirect Vceroyalties of the Russian Empire, despite the missing "i" in "Vceroyalties", is this still a useful redirect? I am not really sure what could be considered as an "implausible" typo according to WP:R3. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Mellk: LOL. My bad. I totally missed that misspelling. I thought it was the correct spelling and merely said Viceroyalties of the Russian Empire. It's now deleted.--SouthernNights (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It also took me a little while to realize there was a misspelling. Mellk (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Reconsider deletion for Afterlight Photo Editor?

You recently deleted Afterlight Photo Editor after it was stated some text was promotional. I've removed the information taken from the app's App Store page which I believe to be the issue (completely agree with you on that front). Would you consider a new draft? Thanks :) EmilyQ92 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

EmilyQ92: Sorry but the article was about a non-notable app and lacked any citations proving notability. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Notability. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Alex Shieh

What was the reason for the article's speedy deletion? I had contested the nomination citing the feature in the New Yorker magazine and it doesn't seem like you saw that and instead decided to outright delete it. I would rather have it go through an AfD process than it just being deleted entirely. Regards, Tintinthereporter226 14:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tintinthereporter226: The article has been moved back to Draft:Alex Shieh so you can keep working on it. We can't have a redirect from the main Wikipedia space to the draft article b/c that is not allowed under Wikipedia policies. That said, the article's subject doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But if you can convince the editors in the Articles for creation process that the subject is notability, you can bring the article back to the mainspace.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your comment and advice. Tintinthereporter226 15:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There has been an AfD on this topic, it closed only two weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Shieh. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the AfD. The draft is quite different from the article that was at AfD. Tintinthereporter226 15:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to bring this to either my talk page or the draft's talk page since I do not intend to fill up someone else's talk page with something that doesn't really concern them that much. Tintinthereporter226 15:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, Tintinthereporter226: As an FYI, the AfD from only 2 weeks ago just further solidifies that the draft article needs to pass the Articles for creation process before being again moved to the Wikipedia mainspace. That means uninvolved AfC editors must decide the subject meets our notability guidelines and passes our other article creation criteria. If I see the article recreated or moved back to the mainspace before that happens, I will delete it again and permanently block the article from being recreated.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The draft is quite different from the article that was nominated at AfD. As I have mentioned to DoubleGrazing, as an example, I have removed the Time source which did not provide significant coverage to Shieh, and the unsourced addition of his middle name. I am not aware if there is no cooldown on AfD nominations or not, however, so apologies if I am mistaken in some way. Tintinthereporter226 15:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that I do not intend to add the draft back into mainspace without an Afc process.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 16:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tintinthereporter226: Good luck with the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

As a note to everyone, the draft was rejected by AfC and this editor was blocked for various issues including using sockpuppets. I've deleted the draft and also deleted and salted the redirect the editor created.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello SouthernNights. Please reverse your deletion. It was inappropriately tagged – it was not recently created and is discussed at the target Subdivision (land)#United States. –– Invasive Spices (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect was created August 31, 2023, so yes it is recent. And it is extremely unlikely anyone will ever search for that topic with a misspelled phrase like "Sudividing real estate in the USA," so it fits the criteria for speedy delete.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, SouthernNights. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is "Deceased wikipedian question".
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ceasharks (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of Arthur C. Y. Yao

Dear @SouthernNights,

Hope all is well. I found that you removed the speedy deletion tag on Arthur C. Y. Yao. I am afraid that I disagree with your decision, and I would like to explain to you why.

I believe that a lot of information of the article comes from the following link: [1]. For example, consider the following part of a paragraph from "Early Life":

Arthur C. Y. Yao was born on August 29, 1906, in Suzhou, China, and died on May 19, 2004, in San Antonio, Texas, United States. Arthur C. Y. Yao was born on August 29, 1906, in a southeastern city of Suzhou (Chinese name spelling: 苏州), which is an ancient city known for its extraordinary natural beauty and fine silk production industry. Arthur Yao’s father was Yao Boxi (Chinese spelling: 姚伯希), a doctor of Western medicine, and his mother was Ms. Cai (Chinese spelling: 蔡氏), likely a homemaker. Arthur was the youngest child in a family of four children, including his elder brother and two sisters, according to his grandniece-in-law, Grace Liu. The Yao family was very wealthy in the local community. They owned a silk shop and traded on silk apparel and accessories. In his childhood, Arthur Yao led a comfortable life and even had a maid to care for him at home. When Arthur was born, he was given the name C. Y. Yao, which stands for Ciying Yao or, in Chinese spelling, 姚启胤. It is unclear when and why he assumed the Western moniker, Arthur. As a child, Arthur received his education from a missionary school where he studied and recited the Bible in English along with the Three Character Classic (三字经, in Chinese characters), a Chinese classic taught to young children. He attended high school in Suzhou and graduated from there.

If you please look at the link provided, and go to the seventh page of the pdf, you will see

Arthur C. Y. Yao was born on August 29, 1906, in a southeastern city of Suzhou (Chinese name spelling: 苏州), which is an ancient city known for its extraordinary natural beauty and fine silk production industry. Arthur Yao’s father was Yao Boxi (Chinese spelling: 姚伯希), a doctor of Western medicine, and his mother was Ms. Cai (Chinese spelling: 蔡氏), likely a homemaker. Arthur was the youngest child in a family of four children, including his elder brother and two sisters, according to his grandniece-in-law, Grace Liu. The Yao family was very wealthy in the local community. They owned a silk shop and traded on silk apparel and accessories. In his childhood, Arthur Yao led a comfortable life and even had a maid to care for him at home. When Arthur was born, he was given the name C. Y. Yao, which stands for Ciying Yao or, in Chinese spelling, 姚启胤. It is unclear when and why he assumed the Western moniker, Arthur. As a child, Arthur received his education from a missionary school where he studied and recited the Bible in English along with the Three Character Classic (三字经, in Chinese characters), a Chinese classic taught to young children. He attended high school in Suzhou and graduated from there.

I have re-supplied the speedy deletion tag, and I hope my explanation makes sense. I understand that Earwig gives a low score–I found that is the case too. How strange.

Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely a copyright violation. I'm not sure why the copyvio report didn't show this when I read it. I also scanned the article but missed this copying. Anyway, I just deleted the article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. SouthernNights (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the understanding and swift action, @SouthernNights!

By the way, I see that the creator of the article might be a little bit lost, and might not have been properly welcomed to Wikipedia. Since you are an admin, would you mind leave them a message, welcoming them and direct them to the tea house if they have any questions? TheLonelyPather (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. SouthernNights (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Arthur C.Y. Yao - Speedy Deletion

Is there any way to get the contents of this article that you previously tagged for speedy deletion back? The source of this page is the following article: “Arthur C.Y. Yao (1906-2004): A Pioneer Chinese Professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law,” by Robert H. Hu. St. Mary’s Law Journal, Vol. 51 (2019): 131-171. To read the article, follow the link: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=thestmaryslawjournal. All contents in the page were taken from this Article and the Article itself was written by the creator of this page. I do not think deletion was appropriate and changes could have been made without the deletion of this page and it's contents. More discussion was necessary before it's deletion. Please help me correct this. Yaoproject (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't give you the contents back because, as you just said, you copied it from that linked article. Even if you're the author of that article, you can't place copyrighted content on Wikipedia b/c it opens us up to legal liability. But I do feel that Arthur C.Y. Yao meets Wikipedia's notability standards and deserves an article here. If you can write a Wikipedia article on Yao without copying the content of that linked article, it would be a great addition to this encyclopedia. Good luck! SouthernNights (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Control-AS

Hiya - noticed you're active right now. Have multiple SPAs removing the speedy tag from Control-AS - clearly a promotional page with nothing to offer beyond that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the article and will keep an eye on it. I also warned the SPAs. Thanks for the heads up. SouthernNights (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Control-AS

@SouthernNights Hello! What are the justifications for deleting this article? The article mentioned major Russian media outlets, such as TASS, so it is very strange that you are deleting the work. You could have studied at least with a translator all the notes, which, by the way, were not few. Look at the source code of the article (as an administrator), check the article again, there are few English sources in the article, I agree, but all the others are full AIs about a Russian company, NOT an international one. This has its authoritative sources in Russia, by any means. Please check again and write to me, I will be very much looking forward to it! Апельсинка-Апельсинчик (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was advertising and notability wasn't shown. In addition, the use of single-purpose accounts that never made another edit on the site to remove the speedy delete template multiple times also strongly indicates that Wikipedia rules are being broken here. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights I don't know who deleted it and what I did, I only published the article and that's it, I didn't edit anything further. Therefore, what violations you are referring to, I am not aware of the case

Moreover, as I saw above, a participant wrote to you about the same article. Usually, this happens when a person does not know this or that language, immediately throws the work for deletion without even looking into it.

Can you tell me specifically where you saw an advertisement for the article, or did you immediately take down the article at the first request, without even checking anything? Апельсинка-Апельсинчик (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was tagged for speedy delete. I analyzed the article and saw that it was both advertising and didn't prove notability of the subject. Also per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, TASS is considered a biased news source by Wikipedia. Many of the other sources in the article are the same or simply don't prove notability. So the article was deleted.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights So, in case you haven't noticed, the article is not about the company, but about the product, i.e. the gas canister, which I think is quite reputable. The company has received awards in Russia for this kind of development. Accordingly, if we judge by the criteria of significance, this article is not about a company or organization, but about a product that has received wide, consumer significance Апельсинка-Апельсинчик (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. But you are welcome to bring this up for a deletion review. If consensus is that the article should not have been deleted, it will be brought back. Sincerely, --SouthernNights (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Female cattle

Please undelete Female cattle. You gave no reason for deletion, and it seems like a perfectly valid redirect to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. I deleted this as a G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup b/c someone requested it. But if you feel it's needed then fine with me. SouthernNights (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Female cattle

Hi SouthernNights. Just for my undertanding, what is the usefulness of having female cattle as a page? I cannot imagine anyone looking up such a term. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

According to speedy delete criteria G6, the redirect can only be deleted in this manner if the deletion is not controversial. Since * Pppery * objected to the deletion, it can't be deleted in this manner. I suggest the two of you discuss the issues and come to a consensus. SouthernNights (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the usefulness of this redirect, but G6 clearly never applied here. Counter what some people apparently think, G6 should not be a catch-all criterion for deletions that don't fit under any other criterion. And it won't be possible to convince me otherwise. If you really insist, take it to WP:RFD, which is the proper process for deleting redirects. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of english page of Anissa Kate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anissa_Kate Hi @SouthernNights I made a Contested deletion about this article.

In this protest report I explain a number of things.

Firstly, Anissa is a major actress on the French and international scene. She has over 270 films to her name as an actress and 3 as a director.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5032729/

I also brought in new sources, with articles in print and online magazines.

Anissa Kate has been interviewed by both specialist magazines (hotvideo, la voix du x) and mainstream magazines (https://www.lesinrocks.com/).

She was interviewed by the Canal+ TV channel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal%2B) to mark the 35th anniversary of the first pornographic film broadcast on a French channel (Canal+ is a major player in the French audiovisual landscape).

This is not a tabloid.

A cultural website, https://toutelaculture.com/, referred to the actress, showing that she has acquired a certain notoriety as part of French pop culture.

So we already have a certain notoriety in the French press.

Anissa has a wiki page in 14 languages. Which also shows a certain amount of recognition around the world.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anissa_Kate

I carefully read the archive on the previous deletion of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anissa_Kate

And I also responded to this debate in my report Contested deletion .

And I see a double standard. It's pointed out that AVN and Xbiz are openly criticised for the way they operate and no one in the mainstream is talking about it. It seems to me that this is very similar to a personal opinion, since there are no sources communicated with this opinion.

Criticising the poverty of an article by expressing one's personal opinion (since it's not backed up by reliable sources) seems ironic to me.

Particularly as the critic explains that there are plenty of mainstream articles talking about these Awards. It does take a few minutes to find them.

What's more, the nomination for the Berlin Venus, which is one of the most important events in Europe today, would also have been overlooked.

But let's face it, PORNBIO is depreciated and winning an award isn't enough.

So, in fairness, in justice, what is applied to an article about a porn actress should be applied to all those who fall into this category.

However, this is not the case, and there are plenty of articles about actresses (or actors!!) with less international notoriety, who only have awards to justify their fame.

I could mention Little_Caprice, Mélanie_Coste, Mya_Diamond, Poppy_Morgan, Tarra_White and many more, the list could be incredibly long.

Even Angela_White's profile seems to fall within the deletion criteria. Apart from a long list of nominations and awards, there is nothing to justify a listing as the 2019 debate on Anissa Kate implies.

The 1st deletion seems to be based solely on personal opinions and has not been applied to all articles on the subject.

I would like the deletion of this article to be re-examined, taking into account the facts mentioned above, and if this opinion is upheld, then, in keeping with the impartiality that should characterise Wikipedia, articles identical to the one on Anissa Kate should be deleted.

Thank you

User:Ghost In The Shell: It's very simple here. This article was previously deleted by an articles for deletion (AfD) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anissa Kate. I compared that deleted article with this one and the new version was essentially the same (such as not providing enough reliable sources to be different from the previous deleted article). Per Wikipedia policy, articles that are essentially the same as the version deleted at an AfD are automatically deleted if recreated. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and see if you can get consensus to overturn the AfD from 2019. That's your best chance to have the article on the site. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

User:SouthernNights:

The 2019 article has been removed for lack of reliable sources.

The same sources that are enough reliable for the actresses quoted.

You haven't answered my question, by the way.

I can only say that there is a double standard and it seems that I've put my finger on an inconvenient subject ;)

Thanks Ghost In The Shell (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I told you want you needed to do. I personally don't have an issue with Anissa Kate having an article here and despite your insult it's not an "inconvenient subject" for me. But if you prefer insulting others instead of following the advice that was given, that's on you.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Guy Fort

On 17 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guy Fort, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brigadier General Guy Fort is the only American-born general officer to be executed by enemy forces? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guy Fort. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Guy Fort), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I like coffee so much. I guess you may like it either, let's drink together. So cheers :D The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! --SouthernNights (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion, or not?

Hi @SouthernNights. You kindly speedy deleted a couple of articles for me yesterday, authored by a sock of a blocked user (User:Jhonh3360 as User:Realtrcranfield). There's a third article written by the same user which also needs deleting – but I'm not clear whether the G5 criteria applies or not. I confused matters by initially trying to correct the article, so I've potentially scuppered the “no substantial edits by others” criteria. I didn't know about the AfD/Speedy delete processes & only sought advice after I'd started meddling. :) Please can you take a look for me and advise? DSQ (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It'd help if I told you which article I'm talking about!! James B. Mulkey. Sorry about that! --DSQ (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

DSQ : I went ahead and deleted the article. While you did make a few edits, looking at the history showed me that no other editors made substantial edits to the article. So it's still a G5. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Astoria bland

Good afternoon! I wanted to touch base with you in regards to clarification about a CSD tag removal. Concerning the Astoria bland redirect and the corresponding RfD discussion, you cited that time should be allowed for the RfD discussion to reach consensus. I was wondering if this decision could be clarified? To the best of my knowledge, CSD criteria G6 still applies as the page in question was unambiguously created in error, noted by the creator as a misspelling (before being moved to Wikipedia:MV Lara) and has seemingly nothing to do with the target.

At the RfD, the !votes for this title are currently 5 to delete, zero to keep, not including the nominator which brings it to 6 deletion votes total in the last three days. What I'm wondering about is that, for lack of better words, does this make RfD a "safe-haven" of sorts for speedy deletion candidates? In my view, this redirect still meets the CSD criteria, and in general I'm under the impression that pages listed at RfD may bypass the standard discussion window if its determined that the redirect is speedy-able.

While it may only be the difference of a few days, having more insight about when and how to go about possible CSD-applicable pages at XfD would be appreciated. Thank you much! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Achieving consensus on a deletion discussion is always preferable to speedy delete. If I speedy delete a redirect, someone else can object and/or recreate it. But if the consensus of a RfD discussion is to delete, then it's harder for someone to recreate it and if they do it'll likely be immediately re-deleted. Since the RfD discussion was close to achieving consensus, I thought it better to let that discussion be completed. SouthernNights (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Apology

I've had some time to reflect recently, and I clearly owe you an apology for my poor behavior at Camp Chase Railway. I've come to the realization that I am burned out from Wikipedia and have been taking it out on people who have done nothing wrong. The way I snapped at you was inappropriate and you did nothing to merit it. I'm sorry. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. But please also know you're a really good editor on Wikipedia and a well-needed subject matter expert on trains. Once you deal with the burnout, I hope you'll find a way to both keep editing and enjoy your work here. SouthernNights (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A7 on Hamza Zarei

Hi SouthernNights -- I've just noticed that you deleted this article under A7, the minute after I'd declined the A7. It seems to me that there are minor claims in the article (four best film awards for a short film; organising the first silent film festival in Tehran), though perhaps not sufficient to reach the threshold for inclusion. I worry with creative professionals working in a language unfamiliar to most editors here that we are perpetuating bias by deleting their articles without careful examination of notability claims and seeking for sources. I would also point out that the speedy tagger is not known to me and only started editing in September. Perhaps you could take another look? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Appears I was evaluating it at the same time you were so I didn't see your edit declining the A7. To err on the side of caution I'll undelete the article. If someone wants to bring it up for AfD, they can do so. Best, SouthernNights (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that was what must have happened. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Byshek (1467)

Can I find out why the page was really removed? I said that in the past, a page was opened without infrastructure and resources, but now I have created a page by giving 8 visible academic sources. Is the purpose of removing the page because it was opened before? Isn't Wikipedia the world's largest encyclopedia? How will people benefit from this information? Or are Wikipedia administrators trying to protect Skanderbeg? In old discussions, the reality of the war was accepted, but since it was a page without resources and infrastructure, it seemed appropriate to delete it. Keremmaarda (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The article was previously deleted through an articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Burshek. As such, it will immediately deleted unless substantially different from the original article. If you wish this article to exist, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and get consensus to bring it back. SouthernNights (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 10. —Cryptic 15:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Page

Recently a page was deleted by you because it was created by a banned user. This page is actually used at many pages.

Can I recreate it and redirect it with other? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 12:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If the banned editor recreates the article under another sock, the article will be deleted again and likely salted to prevent recreation. But if an uninvolved editor creates the article and it meets Wikipedia notability and other guidelines, that wouldn't be a problem. SouthernNights (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights Okay, thanks for information, I'm recreating this page and redirecting it with other. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of Al Baraka Bank Egypt

Hello @SouthernNights, I don't understand why you deleted the page Al Baraka Bank Egypt. it was previously removed due to some text that was amended, therefore it was republished. The bank is a full entity that resides in Egypt and has international representation.

I really don't understand why it was deleted again on the 25th of September, as it didn't have any of the previous issues.

User:Maha G Aboud: The article was originally deleted per an articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Baraka Bank Egypt because the bank doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Because of that, the article will now be quickly deleted if recreated unless the article is substantially different from the original article. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, however the article has been changed to adapt and match the notability guidelines.

That's why the previous editor did not remove it again.

it removed any unbacked claims, and has recent data and information about the institution.

Please revert the deletion act, if you check the history of the page you will see that the content has changed. Maha G Aboud (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the content changed -- the new article was worse than the one deleted per the AfD discussion earlier this year. So no, the article doesn't match notability guidelines and I won't be undeleting it. SouthernNights (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Please let me know how the previously deleted article which in your words "has become much worse" is any different than the one in the link below?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attijariwafa_Bank Maha G Aboud (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Please I would appreciate your feedback :) Maha G Aboud (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I already told you the article won't be recreated. There's nothing more to say. It's obvious you are a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and intending to add this article to promote/advertise the bank. But ironically, your actions have ensured that the article will likely never appear on this site. SouthernNights (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

you're very rude. Maha G Aboud (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi regarding Babu Gogineni

Hi, have you reviewed the article or just deleted because it was deleted before? RevenueDPT✉ 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I did and it was substantially the same as what was previously deleted less than two months ago. If you wish this article to exist, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and get consensus to bring it back. SouthernNights (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can you put it in draft suggesting where the article needs better citations. Thanks RevenueDPT✉ 02:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I won't spend time working on the article. I suggested you go to deletion review as the next step. Unless you can achieve consensus there to bring the article back, it's likely any work on a new draft will be wasting everyone's time. SouthernNights (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of Farzad Ghaderi

Hello Dear @SouthernNights, I don't understand why you deleted the Farzad Ghaderi. it was previously removed due to some text that was amended, therefore it was republished. He is one of the best MMA fighters according to the mentioned sources. First, it was deleted due to the problem related to the sources, when I placed the sources from Sherdog website, and then it was deleted quickly, and I took corrective measures to make the sources and details of Mr. Farzad Ghadri accurate, but it was deleted quickly. Thank you for the reason.plz help me, for create article ,thanks 09:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Ahmadech4 (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The article was deleted due to the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farzad ghaderi that the subject lacks notability. As such, it will immediately deleted unless substantially different from the original article. If you wish this article to exist, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and get consensus to bring it back. SouthernNights (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Dear @SouthernNights,You mean to submit a Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion for this article, correct? Ahmadech4 (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, a deletion review. The article went through an articles for deletion discussion and the consensus was to delete. B/c of that you're unlikely to have success with a request for undeletion. SouthernNights (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Margo the Mouse articles

Hello, SouthernNights,

Just a reminder, please remember to delete any talk page when you are deleting an article (or redirect, category, template or draft page for that matter). If you use Twinkle to delete pages, this editing tool will not only delete the article but also delete any Talk page or article redirects that exist. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my mistake. I must have forgotten to hit the delete talk page button. My apology. SouthernNights (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of hospital at home

Hi, can I ask why you deleted this so quickly? Hospital at home is an internally recognized approach to healthcare that is being rolled out across America, the UK, Singapore and other countries. The definition in the UK is also known as virtual wards, but the two terms are used together by the NHS, and national guidance recognises this. I'm fine updating the content but as it's a real, tangible thing - that's supported over 200,000 patients in England, I think it does need a page. Chopschopschops (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You created an article with one-line of information that was copied from a single source and didn't prove the subject's notability. However, you also are saying hospital at home is the same thing as a virtual ward. Wikipedia doesn't allow the same topic to be created under two separate titles. Simply make hospital at home a redirect to virtual ward. I hope this information helps. SouthernNights (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ques on Uncle Tom edit

Do you think this edit is appropriate? [2] I undid and was reverted. Looks pov to me, even with refs; needs in-text attribution, I think. DonFB (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that edit is absolutely POV pushing and editorializing so I undid it. Equally as important, this is a featured article so a major change like this would need to first gain consensus to be made. SouthernNights (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

FYI, you might want to see this:[3]. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

George Griffith at WP:FAC

Hi! George Griffith is at WP:FAC, see WP:Featured article candidates/George Griffith/archive1, and I figured this might be of interest to you based on your participation at WP:Articles for deletion/George Griffith. If you are interested in weighing in on the FAC, your input would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Roger Scarlett

Thank you for having so much improved the page about Roger Scarlett. I created this page and was fully aware that it was just a stub. Wanted to improve it myself, but then other things were more important. Thanks for your time and effort. Statshist (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article in the first place and I was happy to help out. One of the things I most enjoy doing here is helping save notable subjects from having their articles deleted. And the duo behind Roger Scarlett are indeed notable. SouthernNights (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Good article reassessment for Clare Winger Harris

Clare Winger Harris has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 12:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)