User talk:CactusWriter

	Archives
	2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020-21; 2022-23; 2024

Welcome!

If you need help with something, feel free to ask. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.

If you are requesting administrative help and I am not currently active, here are some other options for you:

If you need to get a repeat vandal blocked, report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism.
If you need a page to be protected from editing, use Requests for page protection.
If you would like to request rollback rights or account creator rights, ask at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
If your problem does not fit into any of the above criteria, and your issue is urgent, make a post on the Administrators' noticeboard, the Incidents noticeboard, or one of the other noticeboards.
If you want to ask for help, you can ask at the help desk for questions about Wikipedia, and at the reference desk for more general questions. You may also simply ask a question on your talk page and add {{helpme}} before your question. This will attract the attention of experienced users who will most likely be able to help you.

Administrators, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.

I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions, however I do expect you to leave a message here explaining your reasons.

edit count | edit summary usage

Nom.tam.fits deletion

Hi CactusWriter. A few days ago you deleted my draft article on Nom.tam.fits citing copyright violations, which were first noted by Tavantius a few hours before your deletion. I would like to clarify that the copyright violation was entirely accidental, and that it has been promptly eliminated withing hours of it having been noted, but not in time before you deleted the draft article.

The Wikipedia article was never based on the offending page (https://nom-tam-fits.github.io/nom-tam-fits/index.html). In fact it was the other way around. The Wikipedia draft article came first, but because it was still not published after 6 months, I have decided to make the content partly available online in the interim, not realizing that the maven plugin that produced the page placed an unintended copyright at the bottom of the page also automatically.

Since then the accidental copyright statement has been removed from the offending page. In fact, I have also removed the content that came from the draft Wikipedia article entirely.

So there is no copyright violation, as there never should have been one, bar a stupid mistake on my part. The draft Wikipedia article is the original (and once again the only) compiled source for the information it contains. I am asking your help to restore it.

My undeletion request has been denied on account that you have to authorize (and perhaps request) the undeletion. So I respectfully ask you to do what you can to reinstate the draft Nom.tam.fits article so it can continue to be reviewed and hopefully published eventually. I have spent around 100 hours so far crafting that article, and responding to comments from multiple editors. I would like to see it through. Thank you, in advance. Attipaci (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Attipaci:. It is correct that Draft:Nom.tam.fits was deleted because the text in the article appeared on the GitHub site without a copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia. (Note that while the software is released into the public domain, the documentation is not unless specified. That is why GitHub directs users to this page for the non-software.) As I'm sure you can understand, Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously -- it can place the entire project under legal jeopardy -- therefore any noted instances of copyright violation are required to be removed quickly.

The easiest solution is to grant Wikipedia permission to copy material already online. The instructions can be found at WP:DONATETEXT. There are two methods: the first is to place a statement on each or any website page with releases to Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International License and the GNU Free Documentation License. (An example of a statement is given.) The second is to send an email to Wikimedia.org with a Declaration of Consent as shown at WP:DONATETEXT.

Please let me know which method you've implemented and I will restore the page. Best. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CactusWriter, thanks for your response and suggestion. I have added the statement to the top of https://nom-tam-fits.github.io/nom-tam-fits/index.html releasing its text into public domain. Let me know if there is anything else you need before you can restore the page. Thanks, Attipaci (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Attipaci. Much appreciated. I have removed the copyright violation template from Draft:Nom.tam.fits and made a comment on the talk page. Please note that although the text on the webpage can be copied freely now, that text may not be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. The article will still need to pass the Wikipedia criteria for neutral point-of-view, independent reliable sourcing and/or Wikipedia:Notability (software). Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @CactusWriter! The notability issue remains an open one. I would like to note that the Wikipedia:Notability_(software) article applies specifically to apps and programs only, and Draft:Nom.tam.fits is neither of those, and so the essay does not offer relevant guidance.

There seems to be no specific guideline for establishing notability for software libraries, which are neither apps or programs on their own, rather they are the building blocks thereof. Maybe that is just an oversight in the essay. If so, the software notability essay should be updated with a consensus on what makes software libraries notable, beyonf apps and programs.

I do think that one aspect of notability that is specific to software libraries is that if a software library is used by one or more apps/programs, which themselves are notable, then the library itself should be considered notable by extension, since it constitutes an essential part of the notable apps/programs, which would not exist in their form without the libraries it build upon... For example, if Wikipedia has an article on "Apple Pie", which uses apples as their essential ingredient, then it's natural that you should have an article on "Apple (fruit)" also.

In the above sense Draft:Nom.tam.fits is notable as it constitutes an essential part of several apps/programs, which themselves were deemed notable enough to have Wikipedia entries.

Just a thought. Maybe you can forward it to a relevant forum, or else point me to one where this can be discussed in a meaningful way... Attipaci (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms (heraldy crown)

Hi CactusWriter. I've already mentioned issues with the article/editor to Drmies, but the editor creating Coat of arms (heraldy crown) has just re-created it again following your most recent deletion. That's the third time it'd been deleted today, I think, and it's also been moved to draft space. Anything you can do? I can tag for speedy deletion, again, but I think they'll just re-create it. They're not responding on their talk page. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bastun, I've deleted the article (again) and given the user a short block. Perhaps this will prod them to begin talking rather than continue with disruptive edits. Good luck. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

When the conversation about an article is going on, the reason to delete that article in a hurry??--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question has not yet been answered. Why??? ---Gowtham Sampath (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gowtham Sampath. I will assume your question concerns the article Periyababusamudram. It was speedy deleted per WP:G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement of a copyrighted page. This is a legal issue for Wikipedia. For legal reasons, text or images that are currently copyrighted elsewhere must be removed immediately. I see that you have recreated the article without the copyrighted text. Please remember that it is always best practice to create text from scratch rather than copy-pasting from outside sources. If you have further questions, please ask. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of a deleted article

Last month, you deleted Draft:Guyana Campaign per G3. The Guyana Campaign under Bolívar was very real, which makes me wonder what exactly the hoax article stated. Any clarity here would be much appreciated. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mebigrouxboy. That draft was deleted multiple times (both in draft space and main space) when editors found that "no evidence that this existed, let alone that the things written here are true or verifiable." Please note that the article you link to in Spanish Wikipedia was a military campaign in 1816-1817. The hoax article was an alleged campaign in 1714. Let me know if you need further clarification. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it had something to do with Dutch history, given the pages that link to it. Is that accurate? - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It described a confrontation between Portuguese, Dutch and French armies. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Ruda_Real?

Your explanation at the page didn’t make any sense. If you don’t think this constitutes a hoax please let MfD decide, don’t perform an illegitimate speedy deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus, it probably would have been helpful if I had linked to the AN page. My larger explanation was given at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard where a request was made to delete the unused page. The page had been removed from WP:LOHOW for more than a year-and-a-half (since October 2022) without any controversy and remained unlinked to anywhere on WP other than talk pages. It was deleted again -- as it originally had been per AFD consensus. The current re-deletion is not illegitimate. Can you provide a further reason for keeping this unused page? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was kind of up in the air whether Ruda Real was a real person. There’s a good possibility that if real (pun not intended) his music career was a hoax. Regardless as long as there was a legitimate reason to delete it I don’t care. Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real name for "Ruda Real," given on that page along with the birthdate, death date and places of birth and death were exact matches for a person listed in public government records including the United States Social Security Administration. The music career part may or may not have been real but the actual person was real with a real family. The article should either have been speedy deleted originally as non-notable or vandalism. In either case, it remained a violation of our WP:BIO policy. Thanks for your input. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real. 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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pppery. I've replied. And as I've always noted at the top of this talk page -- I have no issue with any administrator reversing my decisions. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Page restored and new Mfd created. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding RD1

Hi CactusWriter, just a friendly reminder to remove {{copyvio-revdel}} from a page once you clean the history, since the template populates Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Thanks for helping to reduce the backlog. ^Complex/_Rational 00:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Thanks for the reminder. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Just FYI, your new signature links to User:cactuswriter, which doesn't exist as a page. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been futzing around with my sig -- thanks for the heads-up. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hello, CactusWriter,

Thank you for your help closing AFD deletion discussions today. We always need more admins rotating in to spend some time assessing these discussions. However, please come familiar with Wikipedia:XFDcloser and use it to close discussions. It's what all other closers and relisters use and it's a really simple-to-use editing tool. I know you are not using it now because you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NX Files characters and the result was 22 broken redirect pages along with their talk pages. I needed to delete them all individually.

If you close an AFD with XFDcloser, then this awesome tool will not only delete the article, its talk page and all redirects to the deleted article (and their talk pages) but it will also remove any red links that are left over from the deletion of the article. It's really standard practice and it will make the process so much easier for you than handling each AFD discussion closure yourself, manually. Just a suggestion that might save you some time and worry. Thanks again for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Liz. As can be seen on my contributions, I had already used XFDcloser on all my other AFD closes today. And you're right, it certainly does simplify the process -- not like the old days of tedious manual closes. Sorry about any broken redirects. Appreciate your help. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittani Louise Taylor - University

I am so sorry… that was such a bonehead mistake. Thank you for fixing it! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For taking the time to go through the sources and find my giant goof on the Brittani Louise Taylor article. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No worries. It is a common mistake and easy enough to fix. Cheers! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vecteezy (2nd nomination)

Just a heads up, this AfD was started by a now-blocked sock, so you may want to reconsider the close – maybe a relist while striking their comments? Cheers, Number 5 7 00:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to post about the same AFD. I was looking at some recent AFDs created by a sockpuppet and came across this one. I'm not sure how you came to a Delete decision here. It doesn't seem to be the consensus point of view of the participants. Thanks for any explanation you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one required some careful reading of the participants' discussion points since a couple of them argued against their own "keep"s. The nominator (who was not identified as a sock at close) wanted to delete based on NCORP. Oaktree voted! delete based on it being a PR piece without RS. Teratix voted! keep feeling two sources were RS (although one was shown to be a blog) but they also wanted a complete rewrite (which might be considered a TNT vote!) The next two, Chekidalum and X, said the article passed NCORP. However, X also suggested the article should never have been put in mainspace.(Essentially a draftify or TNT vote!) HighKing wrote Keep but then argued that the article failed NCORP and needed to be deleted unless completely rewritten as a different topic. IMO, the majority consensus based on editors' arguments was the article should be removed for failing NCORP and/or needing a complete rewrite. I probably should have added a line about welcoming draftify requests from anyone.

It was definitely an "interpretive" decision based on the discussion points -- and knowing their was no chance to relist for further discussion. I have no problem if either of you wants to reverse my decision and re-open the AFD for a fourth relist or to even change my close. Just let me know. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, on re-assessment, I now see that the article clearly was recreated by a sock, too. (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiAddict81/Archive about the original Vecteezy article creator) Account is blocked and reported to SPI. It should have been a WP:G5 from the get-go. Thanks for the heads-up on the sock. Do you think I should edit the AFD or redo the deletion to reflect that? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help

Hi you were listed as the contact for admin removal of my recently submitted page: Alley of the Dolls (band). This is my first time creating a new page so I apologize for any noob mistakes in creating but it seemed like I had answered every question brought up by other admins and contributors and supplied literally dozens of references and got nowhere. This is a band I have a lot of knowledge of, and I am really passionate about getting live on Wiki. They absolutely ARE real and established albeit not currently in the hot 100! Any advise you give to restart the page from a position that wont immediately have it pulled again would be appreciated. MusicForeverYours (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MusicForeverYours:. I have recreated the deleted article at Draft:Alley of the Dolls (band) where it can be edited for improvement. I suggest that you review the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley of the Dolls (band) by the discussion participants (they are all veteran WP editors). And review the links to the relevant guidelines. I saw that the issue revolved around a lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Please note that blogs, PR sites, marketing websites and sales websites are invalid as reliable sources. That lack of good sourcing is usual for a new band before it becomes established. Valid reliable sources take time to emerge. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adamlampalo

User:Adamlampalo was created by a sock of an LTA, as recognized at Special:CentralAuth/Adamlampalo. Therefore, it is eligible for G5 even if it was created before the sock itself was blocked. Air on White (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here's the actual link that mentions the LTA at [1]. It's probably helpful to point to that link in your edit summary when G5 tagging an account blocked for WP:NOTHERE or vandalism, etc. Cheers! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

Bureaucrat changes

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating TV3 Group (Baltics)

Hello - I don't know the circumstances of your previous deletion of the article TV3 Group (Baltics), but I plan to create an article with that name containing the information currently displayed at the disambiguation page Channel_3.

The content will be as follows:

TV3 Group (Baltics) is a pan-Baltic commercial broadcasting company owned by Providence Equity Partners through Bitė Group in Lithuania, previously a part of Viasat operations

If this is in any way problematic, please let me know. Thank you. Coining (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Edwin L. Z'berg

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Edwin L. Z'berg, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi CactusWriter :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overrided AFD to deletion

Hi @CactusWriter,

From this log, it shows you deleted the page Chef Chioma while it's undergoing a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chef Chioma. Please undelete the page for the discussion, which is still highly going to be deleted continue (it's a formal process though). If not, undelete the page and close the discussion when due or since consensus is met. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SafariScribe. The AFD discussion can be closed early if the article has been concurrently deleted by Speedy Deletion -- it does not require the continued formal process. See WP:EARLY. The article was tagged properly as WP:G4 because it had been previously deleted a few weeks ago per AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chioma Rowland. I concurred and deleted the article. The AFD is now closed. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I needed. Thanks for the closing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. For future reference, know that if you had wanted, you could have closed the AFD yourself (Wp:NACD) by just mentioning my name and the reason for speedy deletion in the result. Best — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

Hi CactusWriter

Just wanted to raise a query your close at the AFD here. The list was split out from the associated article (now at the title Translating The Lord of the Rings. As such, the prior status quo was that the two pages were in the same location, with the prose and list both in the same place. The split was never discussed and was clearly controversial and disputed, therefore the default status quo should have been to revert to it. There were many contributors to the above discussion who favoured reverting back to that prior status quo, and I think that re-merging should have been the outcome of the discussion. I don't see a strong consensus for retaining the split specifically, there was no consensus in participants on that question, and many editors were simply commenting on the notability of such a list overall rather than the merits of a split. Please could you revisit the close? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Amakuru. I'll be happy to review my close of that discussion with you. First, the AFD was based solely on an alleged lack of notability of the list to exist on its own as a "stand-alone list" (WP:LISTN). Therefore the vast majority of the discussion addressed that issue -- with most participants "commenting on the notability" -- as one would expect for a discussion about notability. In the end, the argument "to keep" certainly outweighed the argument "to delete." As noted in my close, a merge was suggested by several of the participants, including two editors giving it as a second option after their "keep" positions. (And one editor oddly being indifferent as to either deleting or merging.) Which tipped the scales of the close on the side of keeping the stand-alone list. Only three editors spoke to merging "back," with one of them mentioning an undiscussed split. However, there was no evidence that it was "clearly controversial and disputed" as you suggest -- especially since the consensus showed that the editors were fine with a stand-alone list. If you believe the original split was controversial, and it needs to be discussed, is there any reason that you can't create a discussion for that purpose now? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

Technical news

Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare a new page to a G5-deleted page

Hello CactusWriter. Aleksandar Sasha Trajkovski was recently created. Previously, there were deletions of Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski, and one of them was yours -- a G5 (log). The impetus to create pages on these topics on Wikipedia comes from a promotional scheme described in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Promoter generates online coverage in real time. The Мкдвики account was globally locked. An SPI had found socks. The new Trajkovski article is not identical to Draft:Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski which is where the problem was detected at the time, but all of the references seem the same, from memory (a subset is included), the content is similar, and I think that this, together with evident WP:GAMENAME (Saša/Sasha) passes the duck test. Sincerely —Alalch E. 11:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alalch E. I agree. A comparison of the new article with the previous pages shows duplicated language. Because it was created by an SPA account, I've blocked the account on the WP:DUCK behavior and filed an SPI report. After a clerk has reviewed and filed the report, the page can be speedy deleted as a G5. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page on Musician Ben Seretan

Hello! I see that you deleted the page I began on musician Ben Seretan. I would like to republish that page and would very much appreciate your help with that. Ben Seretan is a notable musician and with greater edits, I believe this page to be beneficial to the indie rock and ambient music genres. Thanks! Thequietthunder (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Checking back in about this- thank you! Thequietthunder (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thequietthunder. Per your request, the deleted page has been restored at Draft:Ben Seretan. The article in its current form requires significant improvement to remove the promotional text. After you have improved the article, you can submit it for review by experienced editors. Please note that the page may still be deleted if it does not meet requirements for a Wikipedia page. Best. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! It has been edited for clarity and accuracy and it ready for review. Thequietthunder (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Journal of Communication & Public Relations (JCPR)

Hi, aren't all those external links promotional? --Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Randykitty. I wavered on that one. I agree with you that almost all of the links are crap and should be tossed -- but most are just links to indices and the text wasn't exclusively promotional. The author's conversation at the help desk shows they don't understand what "references" mean. The page is borderline, can't be moved without added RS and I expect I'll be G13-ing it in about 5 months. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're mostly on the same page then, I just have less patience... :-) Cheers, --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:REFUND § Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:REFUND § Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter. I'm just letting you know a bout this as a courtesy since you're the last admin to delete the article, FWIW, I don't think the IP who posted the request is aware that articles deleted via AfD aren't, in principle, eligible for REFUND and need to go to DR instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wellstone

You recently deleted an article that I spent extensive time on. I am more than happy to revise it, as I want to do it right, but I need the original source copy so I can move it to my Sandbox. Could you help me please? ~~~~ SaraJKK (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SaraJKK. The restored article can be found now at Draft:Dave Wellstone so that it can be edited to remove any promotional or non-neutral text. I suggest that you read through Wikipedia fundamental policies on neutral point-of-view and promotional content. After you have finished editing, you can submit the article for review. Please note that if you have any personal connection with subject or their family or their work, than you must declare a conflict of interest (as outlined at WP:COI). If you have questions, feel free to ask. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating article on ICC judge Geoffrey A. Henderson

Hi – about 10 years ago you speedy-deleted an article on Geoffrey A. Henderson. This was about a year after the International Criminal Court judge by that name took office, so I’m assuming the article was about him. At that time he had just begun presiding over the prominent trial of Laurent Gbagbo, so there may not yet have been much coverage of him. He is now the only former ICC judge without an article in the English Wikipedia (after I created a stub about the only other one, Mauro Politi). The opinions issued in the Gbagbo case (including his) are the subject of scholarly analysis (e.g. here). It seems pretty clear to me that he’s notable – I’m just checking with you before I recreate the article because that’s what the deletion notice asks to do. Joriki (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joriki. I see no problem with you creating an article about an International Criminal Court judge named Geoffrey A. Henderson. The original article that was speedy deleted was only one sentence and there is no indication that it was the individual about whom you are writing. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool

Hi CactusWriter, would you mind restoring this page to allow for continued discussion at AfD? I've discussed this with another admin, Hey man im josh, at RFU, and we both think the AfD process should be given a chance. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize you state that any admin can reverse an action you've made, but I feel better if it's mentioned/discussed with you first CactusWriter. I believe, based on the contributions to the article by someone other than the sock, that it probably should not have been G5'd to begin with. I think @Asilvering agreed with this given that they declined the initial G5 tag before the creator of the AfD restored the tag. Neveselbert put a decent amount of work into cleaning up the article, and I think they should be given a chance to continue to do so if they are want to. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neveselbert and Hey man im josh. The WP:G5 CSD criteria has always been a source of discussion and disagreement for multiple reasons. And in this case, it initially revolves around the definition of "substantial edits." Substantial edits are the significant addition of text or expansion of the article content. Before deletion, I checked through the entire list of edits. Nevelselbert did make a large quantity of edits, however, they consisted entirely of minor copyedits, markup, addition of spaces, links, etc. I found no "substantial" addition of content or substance. Even so, I might have had no problem with the article's recreation if you could point out a substantial edit. But in this case, there is a bigger problem. The article is most likely a copyright violation -- which the sock account has been cited for and has admitted to previously. I think Neveselbert recognized that possibility when they added the AI-generated tag to the article. The AFD creator also began to discuss the copyvio problem with examples of close paraphrasing. As I'm sure you're aware, copyvios cannot be restored. Therefore I would not be comfortable in restoring this article. I'm sorry that you put so much copyediting work into the deleted article, Neveselbert, but unfortunately it will need to be recreated from scratch. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on User talk:XXXcatXXx

I replied on that page. Also, what did you do here: Special:Redirect/logid/164477641?

Perhaps RevDel'ing Special:Redirect/logid/164477342?

Thanks. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Myrealnamm. Yes, I saw your comment. The account was already blocked but I re-blocked to remove talk page access. The link above is now revdel'd. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw the Log action before I saw your comment. Quick question, if someone is locked, can they still access their talk page? Or does it mean they cannot sign in at all? Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the parameters selected for the block. In most cases, the user will still have access to their talk page in case they want to discuss or dispute their block. But, if that access is abused, talk page access is denied. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Neveselbert

Hello, CactusWriter. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
Message added 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi CW, would you mind looking at this, please? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been handled already. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Key cactus writer I have question

Hey dude I’m just wondering why you deleted my Grand Duchy Of MaG-V Grand Land pages. I’m just wanting to be a part of the micronation community and not intending to hurt anyone. I’m new to Wikipedia so can you just say what I did wrong so I will not do it again MatAGV03 (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how talking about my micronation is “inappropriate” but I’m just saying please please just let me handle this but if you want to talk please do🙂 MatAGV03 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MatAGV03, Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. Nor is it a web host for your personal info. If you have invented something and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, do not write about it on Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website, blog or social media instead. Please read both WP:MADEUP and WP:NOT for further information. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review and Proposed Changes

Dear CactusWriter, Thank you for your feedback. I understand the COI guidelines and will no longer edit the article directly. I’d like to propose some neutral, well-sourced changes for peer review on the talk page using reliable sources such as BBC and The Herald. Could you or another editor assist in reviewing and implementing these proposed edits? Best regards, MàiriMacInnes MàiriMacInnes (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MàiriMacInnes:. Thank you for your understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines concerning conflict-of-interest. I have responded to your request on your talk page and added the two citations to the article. For future edits or proposals, you can make the requests directly on the article's talk page. Instructions are provided at WP:MAKINGEREQ. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Cheers — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplified

I clicked on OverSimplified from a web search. It said you deleted this article for lack of significance.

At least the summary in the search engine made it seem like a bad article ("OverSimplified is a YouTube channel consisting of crash course videos on major and minor historical wars and revolutions. Some of the topics it covers are the American Revolution, World War I, World War II, The Cold War, The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and more. OverSimplified is sponsored by many programs, including Patreon, Honey, and Skillshare, and also sells history-related merch on its own website. Wikipedia"). As much as this completely fails to usefully describe it or explain its significance, that does not make it an insignificant topic.

Oversimplified has over 8M subscribers, and many more people who have seen it in classrooms and similar kinds of settings. The channel is pretty pioneering too. We have articles on all sorts of minor TV series with much less significance. That it happens to be on Youtube rather than on a major network doesn't decrease it's significance. It just seems like a very strange decision to delete it.

Wikipedia should have articles on other major educational channels too. I'm not sure where I'd place the threshold for significance, but once something is educating hundreds of thousands of people, it feels important enough to deserve an article.

Footnote: I have no connection to the creator or the channel (aside as a subscriber), and no conflicts-of-interest, but I do work in education. 73.149.241.209 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to delete had nothing to do with YouTube nor the number of subscribers. I suggest that you read the two previous deletion discussions about OverSimplified. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oversimplified and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oversimplified (2nd nomination). In both cases, the unanimous consensus was to delete the article because the subject failed to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability or significant coverage. The subject is currently protected against recreation. But if the subject can be demonstrated to meet those criteria now, it can be recreated through the draft process and then submitted for review. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Rauf Javad

Hello, have a good day, dear sir. We request you to help us in re-creating the deleted Rauf Javad page. Thank you in advance for your attention and help! Arif Hikmət türk (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Arif Hikmət türk[reply]

Hello, The same page already exists at User:Arif Hikmət türk/sandbox so, per your request for recreation, I have moved that page to Draft:Rauf Cavad. Please note that the article requires reliable independent sources -- Wikis are not reliable source therefore all links to the azerbaijani wiki have been removed. Without reliable sources, the subject may be considered non-notable or promotional. and may still be deleted again. Best. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir for the information and your help and sincerity! — Arif Hikmət türk Arif Hikmət türk (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Clarification about the Draft

ADN Lith American TV Series (1975) Hi CactusWriter, I noticed that my draft, Draft Lith American TV Series (1975) was recently deleted under the "blatant hoax" criteria. I wanted to clarify that the draft was for a fictional series that I am developing. The content was not meant to deceive or mislead; it was simply a creative work I’m working on. I understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines, so if there are other issues with the draft, I’d be happy to revise it to meet the standards. Could you please help me understand how I can better frame the draft to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia's rules on fictional works? Thank you for your time and consideration! Samiggles (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samiggles. Wikipedia is not a hosting website for personal projects or creative works. Please read the policy guidelines at Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and What Wikipedia is not. A fictional work might be a valid subject on Wikipedia only after it has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]