User talk:Star Mississippi

This page is automagically archived by a botservant. Really old archives are immediately below by year, month. 2010 and forward are in the box below. 2008:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec, 2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

AFDs

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Feel free to call me a bureaucratic wonk but does it bother you that some AFD closers are closing AFD discussions half a day early? Sometimes a full day early. I look for signs that this is bothersome to our AFD regulars but so far, I don't see anyone protesting. And when I see other closers closing discussions hours and hours early, I think, well, maybe this is the new unwritten rule, we don't have to abide by the 7 full day custom. What do you think? Thanks and I hope you are having a good start to summer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Good morning and apologies for the delay @Liz. I'm definitely one who closes early, although hopefully not half a day or more. My personal guideline is whether the discussion looks ready for close or other action when we're reasonably close to the 7 day run. After a relist I believe it doesn't matter at all. I definitely relist at the beginning of Day 7 if one has had no traction and it will clearly do better atop the new log than buried in the old. I personally feel that they fall within admin discretion but if a participant or closer feels it's an issue, I'd adjust my plan. (Except DRV, I'm an early closer there when bureaucracy has attacked). Hope you're doing as well as possible with all going on. Star Mississippi 12:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Just returning to see your response. There are two occasional closers who close hours early, often a half day early. In my time zone, they are closing discussions due to be closed at 4 or 5 pm in the afternoon at 7 or 8 am in the morning which just seems unnecessary. But then I saw you closing discussion early today (which is what prompted me to circle back here) so I guess I shouldn't be so rigid.

I'm not a regular at DRV, do you see editors ever bringing closures for review stating that they were closed too early? I realize that relisted discussions can be closed at any time (and I do so) so I was just concerned about the original 7 day period. But if the common practice becomes "close when you see a consensus", maybe I'll start doing so as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9#2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season sprung immediately to mind; see S Marshall's comment and the replies to it about 3/4 of the way down. (Actually finding it took a while, since there's something very wrong with the DRV archives - there's no way October 2020 was almost four years ago.) —Cryptic 02:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've always thought that the community's decided that deletion discussions should last at least 7 days, which is at least 168 hours. Sysops have discretion to close early, but when using that discretion, should really explain why. The benefit of having a predictable, consistent minimum duration is that it lets adults with busy lives find a discussion, think "Ooh, I need to look at that when I have time", bookmark it, and come back later. It's always a little annoying to revisit and find it closed.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you (@Liz but really any admin) thinks a discussion I closed was too early, please ping me or just revert me if I'm not online. While I agree with @S Marshall's comment there about it being a correction of an error in the deletion process I'd personally say we all want the same thing - the right outcome, and that we don't need 7 days of bureaucracy at DRV to get it if a simple revert/relist could fix it. I seem to have become a DRV regular, almost accidentally. I think it accomplishes a lot, but the process definitely needs streamlined. @Cryptic when I first saw your comment here I thought you were flagging that someone had brought me to DRV over a 2020 close and that there was no chance I'd remember anything helpful about why I closed it as I did. And no, that definitely was not four years ago! Star Mississippi 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD analysis

Hi SM, I did some analysis on AfDs comparing 2019 and 2023 using 4 days for each year that you and/or tps's might find interesting (or not). See User:S0091/AfD statistics. S0091 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

belated thank you. I just had the time to look into this. Really curious and fascinating, especially the "rise" of draftify and post 3rd relist engagement. Thank you for the report. Star Mississippi 13:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Serenity Cox Restoration

Hi Star Mississippi, I am looking for the article for Serenity Cox to be restored. It went to deletion discussion several months ago, and after a lengthy discussion (many in favour and against) it was unfortunately deleted. However, since there has been more coverage of the individual that supports the notable claim. Being relatively new to authoring articles, I updated it and tried to resubmit it, but it was obviously listed for speedy deletion as I did not come to you first.

Looking forward to your guidance and advice. Thanks. SanDiegoDan (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SanDiegoDan. Apologies for the delay as I was offline.

The issue beyond the AfD is that the draft was also rejected (cc @Qcne, @Gene93k & @KylieTastic) and the mainspace title was protected (cc @Robertsky). If you believe you can make a case for notability, you're welcome to appeal the rejection and go through AfC. However the source you used here don't achivvee that.It does not appear Cox is notable, and I think editing on another topic will probably be a better use of your editing time. I've pinged the other editors in case they have further suggestions as I don't have a ton of on wiki time right now. Star Mississippi 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Help for Sanket Goel

Hi User:Star Mississippi , I have been working on this page Sanket Goel for quite a while and there still seems to be a COI tag. I'm a very new editor so I don't know how to get the community to resolve it. Please help. Shashy 922 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Sanket_Goel Star Mississippi 13:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equinox (Amiga demogroup) (2nd nomination)

Hey, Star,

This discussion can't close as Soft Deletion as the article has already been the subject of an AFD discussion. Articles that have been brought to AFD before or PROD'd can't be Soft Deleted which was bluntly pointed out to me on my User talk page several years ago when I did the exact same thing. There are disagreements on what to do if a second AFD discussion has no "votes" or just one Delete vote, some closers close it as "No consensus" and some close it as "Delete" even when there is little apparent support for a Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz. Do you want me to relist it? I'm not sure if you're just advising me I'm going to get my hand slapped by someone, or asking me to relist/close? Absolutely happy to relist/close if that's your request or anyone else's, but don't think anyone is really going to contest it when the ten year old prior AfD also had zero input. There is no one supporting retention of this article and one (nom) supporting removal. If you're not asking, I'm inclined to let it stand as it seems like process wonkery. Of course if someone does contest it, I'd action as DRV is 7 days of bureaucracy we don't need. Just let me know? Thanks! Star Mississippi 01:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Subject

Thank you, after closing the page Casablanca derby due to repeated sabotage from account. Can you go back and undo the last vandalism of the same account? The table was vandalized before you closed the page? Ji Soôo97 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ji Soôo97 - Talk page stalker here. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, then you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. This was a content dispute. If it really had been vandalism, you would have reported it to the vandalism noticeboard, and you did not do that, because you knew it was not vandalism. Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute is more common than it should be, but it is neither effective nor permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators do not take a content position when it isn't a BLP issue.

Please use the talk page to establish consensus about what should be included and be mindful of edit warring once the protection expires. Star Mississippi 13:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but you can undo the last sabotage. You can be sure that when you closed the page, the sabotage came within moments Ji Soôo97 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That is an edit war. Just because you requested protection does not mean it is your preferred version that is protected. Please discuss it on the Talk page. I also caution against calling other editors' edits "sabotage". That is not going to lead to consensus. Star Mississippi 13:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I requested protection because the table had all its information deleted and I was just restoring it as it was, and now the page has been closed and the last deletion of the table remains, meaning I should not have requested protection and kept restoring the table as it was. At least you can return the table as it was in the first place. Ji Soôo97 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

meaning I should not have requested protection and kept restoring the table as it was.

Threatening to edit war is just going to result in you being blocked.

I am not going to restore the edit, and suggest you stop asking other admins to do the same and discuss the changes on the Talk page. It's otherwise going to be protected longer or you will lose access to edit it entirely. Star Mississippi 14:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not a case of stopping asking the other admin because I spoke to him first. I thought he was the one who closed the page. Then I came to you. Thank you Ji Soôo97 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't say we didn't warn them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Two SPAs arguing about a soccer match. I don't even get it. Star Mississippi 01:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Spiro Spathis

Hi, not sure what the appropriate next step is. This article was originally a draft and had been declined one four occasions (including the last by me) and was finally rejected as a suitable topic by me. I notice the creator has now moved it to mainspace and removed the AfC notices. What would you suggest? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Do we have any established editors who read Arabic? I don't, and while my gut is this is an SPA/UPE, I can't read the sourcing to determine whether it's anywhere near GNG. That seems to be what @Drmies & @DoubleGrazing were also feeling with potential notability. I've kicked it back to draft for review by an established editor. If you don't feel compelled to remove the rejection, that's totally fine as your POV is just as valid as the other reviewers and there's definitely some TE going on. Further thoughts? Star Mississippi 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt the subject is notable, but in the meantime I called in the help of an expert. I bet User:Al Ameer son imports a case every month for their private consumption. I'd buy it too, but the article doesn't even say what the stuff tastes like. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the version with suggestions by me and another editor. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Being rejected from AfC doesn't indicate much. That process is a mess. There are some advertorial issues and sourcing issues in the content. I am finding some sourcing on Google Books here. Isn't there an editor whose name is something like NorthAmerica3000? 500? who does a lot of food articles? You could also try wp:food. Editors are allowed to move content to mainspace. As there are indications of notability maybe an AfD is warranted? Not sure how an Egyptian soda water brand with Greek roots being promoted as anti-Israel/ West will fare. Not seeing a lot of coverage in English and languages with similar alphabets. In the meantime Draft:Alligator Oil Clothing should be moved to mainspace as its NRHP listed. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your help @FloridaArmy and for rescuing Lake. Is it Northamerica1000 you're thinking of? Looking at Alligator now...Thanks @Drmies and in advance @Al Ameer son. Not sure what they were up to claiming the draft was deleted and quitting the project, but hope it can be resolved? Star Mississippi 00:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rockycape

Thank you for giving the final warning. I was about to make a report to WP:ANI to request a partial block, but I see that report won't be necessary, because they either will stop filibustering or you or someone else will impose cloture. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon. I'm about to go offline for the evening, so if it continues please feel free to file the report or ping another admin. I've cautioned them about badgering/filibustering since the discussion was opened, so they're well aware. Their conduct had improved but regressed to trolling in their response to you. Star Mississippi 02:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The trolling comments have been deleted, and they have actually shut up. That means that on 12 July the DRV can be closed as Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Alibi's

Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alibi's, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooops?

Obviusly not your intention, but you wiped out a bunch of comments when you intended to move only 1.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

ack! I'm not even sure how to fix that without making a further mess. My sincere apologies. Please do whatever is necessary. cc @Bruxton who I see in the subsequent edit. All 100% accidental Star Mississippi 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It happens. I think most got restored already. Bruxton (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both again! Star Mississippi 17:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Some weird edit conflict is all. Too bad you didn't jettison the entire thread (and the subsequent myriad threads) into the Great Void (just kidding! but not really...)-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A sympathetic (I think?) ear and/or shoulder to cry on

Is it just me, or has ANI semi-recently become almost a pure Vote for Banning? It's always been bad, but now it feels insufferably mean-spirited and full of drive-by hatred. Has it always been this way? One admittedly very anti-Wikipedian thing I wish we could try: no drive-by comments from anyone who has been here less than, say, 2 years. They're welcome to start threads or comment on threads that affect them, but no kibitzing. I hope your talk page is backwater enough that I can say this without getting in trouble. Anyway, mostly just saying thanks for the agreement, and saying hi. Used to run into you more when Keeper was around, haven't said anything to you I think in years. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay @Floquenbeam, I was away for a few days and have never really figured out mobile editing. Yes, I'm a long way from ANK. I miss those days! But I wholly agree with you. I briefly saw the threads the big threads spun off including to Commons and it's just so ugly regardless of whether there's underlying merit. The amount of energy wasted picking apart editors could be so much better spent elsewhere. No drive-by comments and honestly I think a more liberal use of project space blocks (wholly pie in the sky territory here). You can make a TP request similar to that of a blocked editor and if someone sees merit, it's carried over and you can participate. I wish it were possible to block folks from AN/I because you can make a case for needing to edit the help fora, but no one needs to be on the drama boards. Used to think that name was overblown, but they're earning their names more. It's too hot in most areas to say go outside, but go edit an article people! When it's a name brand person, it's even worse because people recognize their names and they're lightning rods.Always vent away here. Star Mississippi 01:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Itzler reversion about Sumnicht

I think maybe you reverted Talk:Jason Itzler by mistake? My edit included four reliable sources: Miami New Times / CBS News / New York Post / Miami Herald.

Also no claims were made other than why don't we cite these sources and this situation - I didn't even interpret them or what to include. JotsBank (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! No, it wasn't by mistake. Please explain how you found this article in your first day of editing. Thanks! Star Mississippi 12:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I found it by hearing the name and googling it, isn't that how biographies are generally encountered? Is it common to revert talk page additions which cite newspapers? JotsBank (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

When it's a new account where the article has been undergoing recent disruption leading to protection, yes. You didn't just google and decide to edit his article. Please log into your primary account and, if necessary, request an unblock. Star Mississippi 12:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biden crisis

Hi! While I agree that the recent events made the discussion especially complicated, and that it wasn't the best of circumstances to have an AfD, I am curious as to why it didn't run for the whole seven-day period. From what I understand (although I might be wrong), "no consensus" closes are usually for discussions that had had time to settle down, rather than highly fluid discussions like this one? From one perspective, it feels like closing the discussion before a consensus had time to actually form. I might be missing something here, so please tell me! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! That was a speedy keep meets N/C. Basically my assessment was there was absolutely no chance of a consensus forming to do anything with that article and seven days was just going to be a huge mess of opinions and ideas, some of which were moot due to changing events, such as proposed redirect targets. It had been moved (twice?) already and the project isn't really set up for fast moving news items, especially not ones reflecting "live" political events. We (not pointing fingers at anyone, it's true of the community) rush to create articles and sub articles without fully thinking about whether we need that article to document a thing, or if it's a live blog which ultimately is merged somewhere once the moment has passed. Is that helpful @Chaotic Enby?

That said, if you think it should run longer, I'm giving my explicit OK for another admin to reopen it as I'm about to log off and may not be online for another 12 hours or so and don't want to leave this unsettled. Let me know. Star Mississippi 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, your explanation makes sense! It's also a good way to let the dust settle, after all. (For what it's worth, I was on the "keep" side, just curious about the process and how closing complicated discussions works) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an exact process to be honest. It's more like "this won't resolve in any manner, so please spend time and energy on something that might" to avoid wasting time. Will this historic withdrawal be discussed somewhere? Absolutely. After November 5 or January 21, will that be its own article? We don't know (my personal opinion as an editor is that it's unlikely) Star Mississippi 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Mark Francis (arts administrator)

Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mark Francis (arts administrator), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Hello,

Past few months ago, you blocked me from editing Wikipedia. I apologize for my mistake. Currently i am editing the draft page Draft:2024 Myanmar Women's League and Draft:2024 MNL League Cup final to unblock me. Please check my article and unblocked me. Thanks. User talk:Vilnae867 03:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I will not unblock you, but if you show an understanding of the issues raised, someone will act on the request on your Talk. However Draft:2024 MNL League Cup final uses sourcing that still shows you don't understand the issues leading to your block. Star Mississippi 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Architect David Carnivale

Dear Star Mississippi, I have had to get a new computer which led to several weeks of making adjustments, and only today,July 25th, was I able to notice you've restored my page - something I was pleased at having for 15 or 16 years or so and was very sad had been deleted. Had it not been for changing computers and the interruptions that entails, I would have thanked you sooner for restoring it (albeit in a truncated form but which maybe someday might be broadened again). Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:206A:5F25:6651:CCCD (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My mistake; in switching to a new computer it appeared, momentarily, that you had restored my 15-year-pld article -but it seems I remain, arbitrarily, in oblivion. I ask that it be restored please; I was asked for citations and sources and provided them in great number- only to be told by an editor that editors don't read or check sources; it all seems very subjective, not very academic and has resulted in a valuable little article having to do with the very beginnings of the internet being made, after 15 years, invisible. Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E969:B61F:76E8:6DE3 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! As we discussed previously, the article about you is in draft: Draft:David Carnivale per the decision reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale. If you believe the community consensus or my close was in error, you're welcome to file a deletion review. Without that, or improvement of the draft by other editors, it cannot be restored. Courtesy heads up to @Drmies as nominator. Star Mississippi 01:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tariq Chauhan

111.92.81.56 has asked for a deletion review of Tariq Chauhan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 14:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Tariq Chauhan Deletion

Hi Sir, Feel the page Tariq Chauhan has been wrongly deleted.

I feel it was an unjust deletion process as the article was blanked out just before deletion. All the content and sources were removed. This was before an editor stepped in and added the before deleted view on the review page. By then already 3 deletion votes had already come.

(111.92.81.56 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC))

Hi IP 111. Please note, you do not need to use honorifcs with other editors as we're all equal here and the person you're speaking to may not be a man. I'll respond at the DRV to keep it all central. Star Mississippi 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to restore List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll to draft

Per the comment by User:Dege31 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll, as an ATD I would like to request that List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll be restored as a draft. I agree that the substantial content there can be reworked into something beneficial to include in the encyclopedia. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BD2412. Unfortunately with 9K+ edits, it cannot be easily restored. My on wiki time remains limited and I cannot process the 500 revisions at a time deletion without my computer hiccuping. Please consider this my blessing for it to happen via Refund. I'm pinging @UtherSRG and @Graeme Bartlett who I know to be active there here to save you from filing there since this is a tech impediment not a willingness one. If folks think it should be handled in another way, I'm fine with that. Star Mississippi 01:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the uniqueness of the situation, I think that it would not be unreasonable to restore the latest version/last 500 edits to draft with a note saying that the remaining edit history is deleted at the mainspace title. If nothing ever comes of the draft it will all end up deleted again; if something does, we can worry about the remaining 9,000 edits in history at that time. The GFDL can bend a bit towards the accommodation of reality. BD2412 T 01:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Error %error_body_content%

Anyone speak template?

Sorry @BD2412 I seem unable to complete this although your proposed plan makes complete sense. I'll try again but in the mean time, green light to any tech minded admins acting in my stead. Star Mississippi 02:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be that the problem there is not the enormity of the edit history, but that of the page itself. BD2412 T 02:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cryptic for the shift tip and always helping. I might be getting somewhere with the revisions. There was also a black listed site in there that I had to remove to remove the AfD. I'll get as far as I can tonight @BD2412 Star Mississippi 02:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Restoring that many revisions shouldn't be difficult - you just need to do it piecemeal, a couple hundred at a time. (Shift-clicking checkboxes in the interface lets you select a range of revisions, instead of having to click every individual box.) Redeleting it would need a steward. Generating a list of users who've edited the page, to be pasted onto the draft's talk page, is easy, and sufficient per WP:CWW even if you just paste the wikitext of the last deleted revision into draft instead of actually restoring anything. —Cryptic 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely something with this page and / or servers as I got through 1000 and now it's erroring out on every attempt. I'm about to log off for the evening but @BD2412 you have 1K revisions which should be enough to work from. I put a note on the Talk about the split history and pointed to your results @Cryptic as well as this discussion. Star Mississippi 02:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that is definitely enough to work from. BD2412 T 02:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It gets more complicated since the page was moved, and I'd advise against restoring any further revisions at this point. We'll also have to take some care if this is to be moved to mainspace - it would have to go first to the original title, the remaining revisions restored, and then moved to its final destination if different. (I still have scars from a similar situation, on a much smaller scale, at List of numbers in various languages.) I'll make some notes on talk. —Cryptic 02:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cryptic (and that one wasn't even mine! There was a messy one that was for sure, although I think that was more page moves than number of revisions) I think I'm done with large page histories for a good long while. <g> Happy to help at any time @BD2412... with anything less complex. Have a good evening both! Star Mississippi 02:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Tan Yinglan (3rd nomination)

Hi Star, not a complaint but just curious why you opted for AfD rather than G5. Also,I looked at the previous AfD and noted the IP that voted keep geolocated to Pakistan which is likely where this sock farm is operating from and they of course also use proxies. I will try to keep a look out for that and editors with low edit counts and note it there. S0091 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I think I see now. It's a maze to follow the history. S0091 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a mess @S0091 as you saw when you reverted your G4. Once @Nyttend declined the G4 I felt a speedy of any flavor would be inappropriate. My being AfD1 closer doesn't help either. I'm glad the current discussion is getting more input which should balance out the sock/meats (which I'm pretty sure Paujoqs97 would be too if they weren't stale. Star Mississippi 01:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
21		Gerhard Boldt (talk)	Add sources
121		TeleRadyo Serbisyo (talk)	Add sources
13		Lori Foster (talk)	Add sources
122		Principality of Waldeck and Pyrmont (talk)	Add sources
21		Citizen Corps (talk)	Add sources
2,021		Louisville, Kentucky (talk)	Add sources
30,837		2024 Venezuelan presidential election (talk)	Cleanup
28		2017 in Philippine television (talk)	Cleanup
1,936		2024 in Philippine television (talk)	Cleanup
237		Shutdown of ABS-CBN broadcasting (talk)	Expand
2,593		Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (talk)	Expand
14		Bhojpuri Film Awards (talk)	Expand
23		King Girado (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,074		Tom and Jerry (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
70		Rohtak district (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
214		Existential therapy (talk)	Merge
187		Melancholic depression (talk)	Merge
53		Energy policy of the United Kingdom (talk)	Merge
15		David Sutherland (comics) (talk)	Wikify
13		Gender-based price discrimination in the United States (talk)	Wikify
58		Filmfare Award for Best Film – Telugu (talk)	Wikify
2		Shanghai-style barber shops in Hong Kong (talk)	Orphan
2		Wholesale list (talk)	Orphan
4		Chad Willis (talk)	Orphan
14		Dr. Akagi (talk)	Stub
6		Valdecaballeros Nuclear Power Plant (talk)	Stub
3		Roberta Pelosi (talk)	Stub
31		S.O.C.O.: Scene of the Crime Operatives (talk)	Stub
4		Goodyear Classic (talk)	Stub
15		Lin Yi-chun (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French films of 2026

Hello, you deleted these two articles before the seven day waiting period of its relisting, not giving me the chance to reply to the additional comments that were made.

Editors calling for deletion evoked WP:TOOSOON which did not and still doesn't apply to those articles as they contained numerous "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources". The second regular comment, the presence of red-linked items, is not a valid reason for deletion.

Please restore the articles. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! There is no seven day waiting period following a relist and it may be closed at any time consensus is clear. You were the only person arguing for retention. I'm willing to consider a restoration to draft, but if you restore them to mainspace they will be re-deleted. Will you take it through AfC? If not, you're welcome to file a DRV If you believe my close was in error. Star Mississippi 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft categories

In this edit of Draft:Huolin L Xin, why did you bracket {{Draft categories}} with another {{Draft categories}}? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Anomalocaris. THanks for flagging. I'm honestly not sure what happened. I spot checked a couple others and it doesn't appear to have happened. I'll keep an eye out but I'm guessing script glitched. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

List of archaeological sites by continent and age

I noticed that your recently deleted an entry titled "List of archaeological sites by continent and age." Can you explain your rationale for declining the creation of what could be an extremely useful guide to articles on Wikipedia? Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hoopes. Consensus was against retaining this article as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeological sites by continent and age. If you believe my close was in error - not that you simply disagree - you may file a deletion review. Unfortunately it being potentially useful is not sufficient for it to remain at this stage. Star Mississippi 02:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French people killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hello, Star Mississippi,

What do you think should happen with this AFD? Discussion participants have added other articles to this discussion mid-way through it. Editors have already commented who weren't aware of these additions and they weren't added by the nominator. What do you think?

Also, have you noticed that there are a lot fewer AFD discussions these days? A few months ago, it wasn't unusual to have 80-100 discussions listed on the daily log and now it's like 50-60. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz! I think the situations around all are likely different making it hard to assess as a group, even if they'd all been nominated at the outset. If I saw it in the closing day I'd relist to be sure all knew about the additions and if they wanted to amend their vote. All the forums seem quieter. Summer holidays maybe? Certainly not better outdoor weather, at least not here. Hope you had a nice weekend! Star Mississippi 12:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick question

Hi, I was just reading some of the material at Draft talk: Lewis Josselyn and I noted your comment "That's not going anywhere, unfortunately as there's no teeth at COI/N." I follow the discussions at COIN quite regularly and it seems to be a common thing that no matter how obvious the COI, UPE or disruption, all that seems to result is the occasional block for e.g. username violations.

I've tried to circumvent some of the issues by occasionally requesting increased page protection, which often does the trick for SPA IP activity.

So, my question is, should some COIN topics actually have been started at ANI (or redirected to ANI) where admins are more likely to dispense blocks for PROMO, topic bans etc? Is it basically a vain hope to anticipate such measures being dispensed at COIN?

Any clarification on this point would be very gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Axad12. This is my POV as an editor, definitely not site policy or admin guidance.

COI/N can be helpful for guidance toward new editors or those trying to make sense of how we guide conflicted editors. In that sense it functions like one of the help desks. So you could raise it if you found it on an article with a new editor who isn't sure how to edit or would like some broad guidance or even who is making problematic edits but willing to stop once they're made aware. But with Greg who has been to COI/N and ANI on multiple occasions, or other editors who want to edit their company/family/etc. it isn't going to be enough if they're not willing to play well with others. Greg is not going to change because he has been doing the same thing over and over for the last decade or more which is unfortunately why we're at ANI for a site ban. COI/N seems best suited for guidance. As for whether it should be at AN or ANI, I'm not sure. I'd say grab a passing admin for blatant disruption (and happen to be that person if you see I'm online) and for protracted conduct issues, take it to AIV or ANI. Note: I'm not sure where DRN falls within this spectrum as I'm not active there. Is that helpful? Star Mississippi 12:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's very helpful indeed. Thank you.

I had been reluctant to approach admins directly on cases because I thought it might be seen as canvassing, especially if I had already been involved in a discussion. But I will do so from now on with genuinely disruptive cases who don't give up after being brought to COIN.

Most users who get taken to COIN, I think, didn't realise they were doing anything wrong (seeing Wikipedia as an extension of social media). This seems to be evident from the 'above ground' usernames they often adopt. As soon as they realise they're operating outside of policy they tend to fade away and the issue disappears. Or they declare the COI and work within the policy.

And yes, indeed, not COIN for Greg. It was just that your 'no teeth' comment struck a chord with me due to how things often work at COIN. The Greg side of it was coincidental...

Thanks again for your wisdom and your time, very much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)