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

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)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring SPA who does not respect the results of the COI edit request process

Hi, I wondered if you might take a look at this COIN thread [1]. The SPA (on the issue of whether 2 companies are Chinese state-owned) edit warred on 2 articles before being encouraged to declare COI and to make COI edit requests. He then made the edits again rather than waiting for the edit requests to be approved and was told not to do so again.

A month later one request was turned down and the other remained outstanding, so the SPA returned to edit warring over the material at both articles.

I'd suggest that the user be blocked from editing the two articles. They are inexperienced and obviously have strong feelings on the matters involved, but they had previously been warned that a block might result.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Axad12. I'm not going to be able to give this far eyes for a few days, unfortunately. Please let me know early next week if it's still an issue and I've not come back to it/another admin hasn't addressed. Star Mississippi 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for UPE. I'm in favor of one page (or namespace) block, but when we get into multiple it's my opinion that the disruption will move. Of course if he convinces another admin, they're welcome to adjust the block. Sorry for the delay. Star Mississippi 01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your assistance here, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz Neeley close

Hi Star, would you mind expanding on your close rationale? From what I could gauge we have the nom; @Russ Woodroofe's "weak delete" that seems to at least partly be weak because of the possibility of NAUTHOR and the interview in NPR (which our policy lists as primary "depending on context", with the context not being particularly applicable in this case); a weak keep that can be discounted entirely since it's based on authorship that turned out not to exist; a weak keep where there is only one interview source the editor considers to have SIGCOV, which is not enough for GNG even if it had enough independent and secondary content; another weak keep that also hinges on the single interview source being counted for GNG; a keep that doesn't understand that GNG requires coverage, not just selection as an interview subject; and two detailed deletes that describe why the interviews fail to count towards GNG. I think given how recent @David Eppstein's !vote was it might have been preferable to relist so that other editors could respond?
Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I think it was simplest to relist here especially as it had only been relisted once and seven additional days at AfD is likely to be more fruitful than the same time at DRV, should you have chosen to go that route. While I agree with some of your points and don't think I'd have voted to keep, I feel like community consensus is fuzzy w/r/t independence and N:AUTHOR/N:ACADEMIC, and we saw some of that here. Curious to see if a consensus firms up. Star Mississippi 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing as JoelleJay, myself. As discussion was ongoing it looked like another relist could have been fruitful. Alternatively, it would have been possible (although obviously more controversial) to close this as delete citing the weakness of the keep !votes. I think the no-consensus close that you chose instead was the weakest of these three possibilities, and could well be turned over to a relist at DRV. As for your invocation of N:AUTHOR/N:ACADEMIC, there was no case made for N:ACADEMIC on the AfD whatsoever, and the one keep !vote based on N:AUTHOR turned out to be based on mistaken identity and should have been discounted. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome JoelleJay.

@David Eppstein While I'm not sure it would have been overturned to relist (vs. say re-nominate it in a shorter than typical window), there was definitely no need for DRV with an established editor in @JoelleJay asking for reconsideration (or you, had you been the one to come here first). Consensus is what we all want, regardless of what we think about a particular topic and 7 days at DRV+ a potential 7 at AfD again is a waste of community time and bandwidth. FWIW, I'd already relisted it about two hours before you commented here because I have no issue with more eyes.

Re: NACADEMIC, sorry to be clear that was my making the connection between the two where academic sources frequently aren't independent of the subject but as long as they back up citation/position, it generally results in a decision to retain. I see the same for author discussions although ideally all of the reviews are independent. The three of us know all too well that AfD isn't always the ideal world. Star Mississippi 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reopening! JoelleJay (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Star Mississippi 20:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Rick Sanjek

Hi Star,

I'm a newbie and I'm lost at the moment. I'm creating a page for Rick Sanjek. I just submitted a draft for review and it was declined for copyright violations. Where do I start to find the cause of the violation(s) so that I can correct it/them? Thanks

CyberDave9000 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@CyberDave9000 (talk page watcher) Don't worry, I've already removed the copyright violating material. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @I dream of horses. @CyberDave9000 make sure to consult the sources about Sanjek but write in your own words, do not copy what they write. Let us know if you need more help, or check with the teahouse who have an array of volunteers available. (Personally about to log off for the evening. Star Mississippi 03:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Evening @Star Mississippi, I believe I have removed the copyright violations. What happens when I click publish? will it cause a review to take place? I'm just a little gun shy at the moment - thanks CyberDave9000 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Just click the blue Resubmit button and a reviewer will assess the article. Star Mississippi 01:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@CyberDave9000 you should be editing Draft:Rick Sanjek, not your userpage. I have redirected your userpage. Please do not edit that with article copy. Star Mississippi 02:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi - when I went to publish on the draft page - I got an error. I had to restore (copy/paste) the draft page to publish . thx again CyberDave9000 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi - what is the protocol here? - do I have to accept all edits made to the page or can I undo them? CyberDave9000 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CyberDave9000 You are free to undo edits, but I'd recommend not doing so given their broader familiarity with how Wikipedia works. The only edits you may not remove are the AfC reviewers' notes. Star Mississippi 03:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI on List of Famous People

I agree with your closure of the WP:ANI dispute. I think that you and I agree that a dispute should only be pending in one forum at a time, and that there are content forums and conduct forums, and it is better to handle a dispute that has both content and conduct aspects in a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note @Robert McClenon. Apologies, I don't recall this discussion, but your summary reflects my thoughts. ANI is too busy to deal with things that would be better handled elsewhere. Star Mississippi 22:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It was the Autographs subpage of the user page of Marine 69-71. Maybe I should have provided a little more information to a busy admin who deals with a lot of controversies. At least two people went after the subpage. One nominated it for MFD, which is a content forum, and one of them went to WP:ANI. Now we are also seeing a RFAR to desysop him. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahh yes. There was nothing further that could have come out of ANI as, at that moment, Administrators' Recall didn't exist and personally I'm not convinced it would be suited to this type of situation. And no worries on the context, I probably should have had more coffee as well. Star Mississippi 02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

FloridaArmy Drafts

Draft:J. R. Preston

I started a draft on this fellow a while back and would be happy to have some help with it. (Also posted this on Mississippi Wikiproject talk page). I hipe all is well. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @FloridaArmy. I'll try to get to this in the coming days and week. You know I love educators, so thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 02:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Virtute et armis FloridaArmy (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Theodore Sydney Moïse

Any chance you or your page watchers could help with this declined draft? Several "further reading" sources are included. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Josephine Tye Noel

I don't understand the submission denial rationale for the submitted draft and I think she belongs in mainspace. Ripe for expansion no doubt. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking into this and Moise who you flagged above. Apologies for delay, on wiki time has been somewhat limited. Star Mississippi 22:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Miyu Takahashi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Miyu Takahashi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~~~~ DCsansei (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keramikou 28

I agree that starting the AFD was what needed to be done. This was a clear case of gaming of titles, which is all too common, often with articles where the native form of the subject is a non-Latin writing system, which is a conduct issue. At the same time, if a conduct issue can be ignored by focusing on content, that is more likely to improve the encyclopedia. I have a difficult time assuming good faith when there is a name game, but a deletion discussion doesn't involve the conduct or good faith of the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies for the delay @Robert McClenon. I wasn't sure if it was a title gaming situation or transliteration, but knew that the content issue was going to be better handled separately since it wasn't necessarily tied to the creator issue. I've been offline but will check in on how both are resolving soon. Star Mississippi 03:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Title gaming often takes advantage of the options of transliteration, but is still often title gaming. I have seen it more than once with Indian actors. After an article is deleted, another article is created with a different spelling. There is no need to change the spelling of a name unless the objective is to avoid seeing the deletion. With native English language names of people, the title is gamed either by adding or changing a disambiguator, or adding or removing a middle name or middle initial. Changes in the spelling of transliterated names are usually done on purpose. The good-faith approach is to argue over the primary spelling after notability is established, and create redirects for other spellings. This was a name game, which is conduct that can be ignored by addressing the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A huge problem about a user, who overrides the AfD result on an article

Hello Star.

I just want to let you know that a user by the name of Tyamutz had overridden the AfD result on Fractured (miniseries) article, which you closed and redirected to an other article a few months back. I'm not sure how to stop that user since the user removed the redirect template, recreated, and updated a page instead of creating a new draft. JRGuevarra (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The difference between the "new" article and the old one are miniscule. Here's a link to said difference. I'm going to revert to Star's edit and warn @Tyamutz. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sirocco745 That's starting to make sense, and thanks for warning Tyamutz about this issue. JRGuevarra (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem! I tend to randomly check the recent talk/user talk page edits to see what I can do to help :D Sirocco745 (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @JRGuevarra for flagging and @Sirocco745 for stepping in while I was offline. It looks like it as been resolved but please don't hesitate to ping me if further action needed. Star Mississippi 03:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing of Faith Theological Seminary has been blocked but there is missing information now about its history:

FTS initially used the facilities of the First Independent Church of Wilmington (later Faith Bible Presbyterian Church), pastored by Harold Laird.[1][3][2] FTS grew in size and moved to Huston Hall in Wilmington in 1941,[2] then to Lynnewood Hall (the former Widener estate) in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, in 1952.[1] Carl McIntire served as president from 1972 until 2002.

1. "The Design and History of Faith Theological Seminary". Faith Theological Seminary. Retrieved August 10, 2020. 2. Harden, Margaret G. (1967). A Brief History of the Bible Presbyterian Church and Its Agencies. Bible Presbyterian Church. pp. 45, 134. Retrieved August 11, 2020. 3. "Our History". Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA). Retrieved August 10, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenhague (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Stephenhague. Please feel free to use WP:Edit requests to suggest changes on Talk:Faith Theological Seminary. You may edit that page but not the article directly Star Mississippi 20:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Pagal Khana

should I re draft Draft:Pagal Khana or not? by --Sunuraju (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you please clarify your question? I note you also asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#01:00,_11_November_2024_review_of_submission_by_Sunuraju and would recommend one location for your question. Star Mississippi 01:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @CNMall41 for the context! I'll respond there to keep it central. Star Mississippi 01:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

COIN thread

Hello Star Mississippi. I wonder if you might have time to take a look at the following COIN thread [2]. The user in question, Smatprt, has a conflict of interest in relation to the articles for Stephen Moorer and the Pacific Repertory Theatre plus several other related articles. The situation has been going on for many years.

Easily accessible off-wiki evidence has been noted by multiple editors at COIN and the user claimed (over a fortnight ago) that they are happy to answer any questions but have since gone silent. They have actually previously revealed their identity on-wiki but it was many years ago and under circumstances that may not have been entirely regular (it was following an attempted outing), they have also done so at Commons.

However, the nature of the COI is pretty transparent from the username and is confirmed by the off wiki evidence. I'd be grateful if you could take action.

(Apologies for contacting you when you are offline, but it seems we are in rather disparate timezones and rarely online at the same time. However, these sorts of requests of mine are rarely urgent so I'm happy for your intervention just whenever you happen to be free).

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Axad12. I never mind you reaching out at any time. I view Wikipedia as primarily asynchronous communication, where in real time is just an added bonus. So never hesitate to reach out. I'll try to let you know if I'm offline for longer than normal. All that said, I'm going to decline to engage further here. I believe there are more complex ties with an editor who I brought to ANI so I'd be Involved and it's a complex one that won't be resolved with a block either. I know there's a backlog at the paid / COI queue and SPI, but I think that's the best course of action here and it doesn't look like an SPI has been filed. cc @Graywalls, @Netherzone if there's anything I'm missing and thanks as always for flagging @Axad12. Star Mississippi 13:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Axad12, I think in a case like this where there has been long term COI/UPE editing going on (as well as strong off-wiki and on-wiki evidence), it probably should have been taken to ANI rather than COIN.

ANI's charge is to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems whereas COIN's charge is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. It was pretty clear from the get-go the editor has a strong financial COI over the years and has never disclosed or stopped editing directly (they are not complying with COI guidelines), so that was already determined (and supported by the discussion at COIN and the diffs presented).

ANI may have been a better venue since these are chronic, long-term issues with the editor. As far as sending in off-wiki evidence to the "paid" en WP email or the Arbs, whenever I have done that it does not seem to result in anything, and I've never, to my memory, gotten a response, so I wonder if anyone actually reads those emails. Regarding socking, while I wouldn't rule it out (they did sock in the past), I'm not convinced there is currently socking going on. Netherzone (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but (with regards to COIN vs ANI) it wasn't me who started the thread.

My concern at present is where we go from here, as switching to ANI at this point doesn't seem practical.

My personal opinion is that Smatprt should be blocked in some way (if only topic banned). I appreciate that Star Mississippi had valid reasons for not applying that block themselves but I'm not sure how to take the matter forwards now towards a satisfactory resolution. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I sent all the personally identifying and compelling evidence to the functionary email but never got a response. Looking at Talk:17-Mile_Drive, it doesn't look like Smatprt is struggling with basic Wiki code, so it's a bit strange responses to allegations about Smartprt's COI behaviors are coming from IPs more than once, then saying "it was me" in a different response while logged in. I think meat puppetting is a fairly likely possibility given how close it was in timing of WP:LOUTSOCK occurrence at Talk:Edward_G._Kuster which complained about a redirect. There's likely off-Wiki private discussions. Ping to @Netherzone:. Graywalls (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:, Going to ANI is quite likely time consuming, but you can if you'd like to. Some editors don't even like when other editors go to COI/N without having handled the matter on talk pages first. If Smatprt comes back to edit later, the lack of cooperation in COI/N certainly won't reflect good on them. Graywalls (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

With regard to COIN/ANI: my personal feeling is that we all put a lot of work into uncovering UPE/COI and the reason we do that is to put a stop to it. As per previous discussions it is a fact that COIN "has no teeth", although it can often be observed that COI-lite users voluntarily stop their activities after they get reported there.

Echoing the comments by Netherzone above, where the behaviour is particularly ingrained (and where the user clearly knows that they have been operating outside of policies and guidelines for an extended period of time) then I feel that ANI is the correct arena for that problem to be aired - if only because otherwise it is demonstrably highly unlikely that admin action will be forthcoming, in which case what is the point in raising the issue at all? We all spend far too much of our time on these issues to allow that to be a common outcome.

Obviously it is unfortunate that admins do not patrol COIN with any regularity, and those who do don't seem to take action against clear abusers. There are also some admins who take the line that the only appropriate way to deal with off-wiki evidence is via the relevant email address (which, as has rightly been pointed out above, is a complete waste of time). Those admins will not take action against even the very worst UPE offenders (who are inevitably only ever identified by off-wiki evidence). That being the case, it seems that the only way to guarantee an appropriate admin response is to refer obvious sustained UPE/COI activity directly to ANI.

Apologies for the lengthy post, but there are too many threads at COIN which end up unresolved before being archived. Therefore I think we need to change tack and take the more serious cases directly to ANI. Please note that this suggestion is actually as per advice previously received from Star Mississippi.

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:, Smatprt is now engaging at COI/N. Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Axad12 @Graywalls @Netherzone.

Speaking briefly with my admin hat, but just as an opinion and definitely not policy. As to why admins don't monitor COIN (or Close Request, as discussed on AN re: a DRV that was lingering), there are too many boards. We as a community try to file things where they belong, which is good, but that means there are too many places that need following and action. I am personally not a fan of X report is in the wrong place, file it at Y" when I can action it-you see that from me personally a lot at DRV where the "correct" answer is REFUND but FFS, let's get it done without bureaucracy so the article can be improved.

There is nothing wrong with the COIN report, but it's not going to get the eyes an AN* thread would, which means the problem lingers. On the content side, we see this with merger discussions that ultimately land at AfD. Some folks dislike any course of action, unfortunately. When COIN was created, there was a need for a standalone place to report this type of issue because AN/ANI were overloaded. With fewer admins even with the recent elections, there are too many places to actively monitor. I never mind being pinged @Axad12 (or any of you), but I don't have the bandwidth to monitor COIN unfortunately. Maybe a request for more eyes at AN, especially when there's a backlog. Long form of no real answers, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 02:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts here.

With regard to the ineffective admin response on this case at COIN in the last few hours, my feeling is that it only goes to prove my point. It's clearly very disappointing for an admin to respond that this is an enthusiast with an interest in Shakespeare and theatrical productions when the easily accessible off-wiki reality demonstrates a far more profound COI. These sort of cases evidently need as many admin eyes as necessary so as to avoid a single response along the lines of "move along, nothing to see here", effectively facilitating further COI. Axad12 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the Paid queue just expanded. I need to go find the threads. I reported something to ArbComm once and they looped in the paid queue, but I didn't need resolution from them since the editor in question worked themselves into a DE block regardless of other factors. It's not a longterm answer, but ping me when I can help in the interim @Axad12 Star Mississippi 02:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:, have you noticed how they've been forgetting to cover unflattering things? One source already present in the article was essentially devoted to the organization, but it was used only for a minor fact verification and anything but what the article was about. There's enough in that article to possibly be worth doing an entire section for Graywalls (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Graywalls. To be honest, as per my recent post [3] at COIN, it seems to me that those on one side of that overall argument (at PRT) are acting correctly and the other side are doing their best not to engage on the issues and instead to throw allegations about to generally obfuscate.

If there is unflattering press coverage in RS sources then obviously it should be in the article, but clearly the chances of that happening are presently zero while the impasse on current content continues.

It's currently about 4am where I am, and I don't feel at my best. I've looked through the titles of the 74 sources in the PRT article and I assume you refer to source 8 (which unfortunately I don't seem to be able to access). Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:, try the "archived" copy. Just added the link. Graywalls (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the level of detail that some users want to see in the PRT article, I assume that they would welcome WP:DUE coverage of that issue. I strongly suggest that you add an appropriate new section to both the PRT article and the article for Stephen Moorer.

I was somewhat surprised that at no point in the Monterey Now article was the rift alleged to relate to a vendetta in relation to Shakespeare authorship issues. Axad12 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I spotted that you had already added reference to those events to the PRT article. I have now added a slightly amended version to the Moorer article for good measure. There was no mention there of any events since he was appointed executive director in 2008, so I think this will be welcomed as a useful addition by all those of an inclusionist persuasion. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Just digging out of the week. Anything you need me to look at @Axad12 @Graywalls? I know I owe you a look on the thread about routine activities, Gray, but haven't yet researched the situation. Thanks both! Star Mississippi 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

haha. I'm now tangled up over at Breyers ice frozen dessert. Trying to figure out how to do an RfC for it. I have only done two or three ever. Suggestions on which avenue I should pursue next? DRN or RfC? I already approached NPOV/N and got some useful input but I feel like another editor is not receptive. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Well that's one way to get turned off eating dessert.

I think a Talk Page RfC is best with pointer at maybe a food & drink project. I know there's a way to get them broader attention, but not sure this rises to the level although it certainly seems intractable. Worth waiting for after the 11/21 decision Star Mississippi 03:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you say it's more of food & dessert, or just company regardless of what it is? The biggest concern here is that the said editor was contacted via talk page and ping, by a representative of a public relations firm working on behalf of Unilever Corporation which owns Breyers and inserting rather promotional fluff, whiting out unflattering contents. The talk page archive might give some background context. This one is different from what I am used to be working with. I feel the public relations firm here is quite pushy. Graywalls (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Yashar Mamaghani

Hey man. I saw you deleted the article and closed the discussion. First, thank you for reviewing and closing. Secondly I'm a bit taken a back as to why the article was deleted. It seemed fine to me based of the vast plethora of sources I found, but strangely this wasn't enough. I'd like to know what was the rational in deleting it according to you if you wouldn't mind. Third I'd like to request you to kindly draftify the article(if possible still) If not can I at least get some form of viewing what the final form of the article was? I just feel I worked a lot on it to let it go, you know. But all in all I appreciate the month long discussion ended. Thanks. Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @Rob. H. Brodie.

I've re-read it and don't see another way I could have closed it. The primary issue that came up was source depth and whether it was about him, or the company. I'm happy to draftify if you think you can improve it. You'd then be welcome to return it to mainspace. If it's suitably different, it won't be subject to a speedy deletion but can always be brought back to another AFD. You can find the draft at Draft:Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Just one other note. You did nothing wrong, but just for the future when you have a question about an article or discussion, it's best to leave a link. In this case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani because administrators frequently close many discussions.) Star Mississippi 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you restore and move LeoCAD to draft?

Hi. Can you restore deleted LeoCAD page to draft? Its true that sources on the web are scarce and its due to it being famous in the past, therefore there are possibly multiple physical book sources and research papers mentioning it that can be traced down. One example is this book and this research paper. VectorVoyager (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @VectorVoyager. Thanks for your note and offline research. You can access the draft at Draft:LeoCAD. I'm not watching it, so please ping me there or here if you need anything further on this. Star Mississippi 03:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have updated it. Do you think it can be submitted now? VectorVoyager (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done. I think you've definitely addressed the concerns at AfD @VectorVoyager. If you submit it, let me know and I'll accept. You can also feel free to move it directly to mainspace. If you do so, I'd recommend an edit summary along the lines of "improved/addressed with closing admin" so patrollers don't see an immediate issue. Let me know if you need anything else. Star Mississippi 16:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! VectorVoyager (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You'll see I combined two uses of the same reference. Good to know for future editing of this article or elsewhere as it makes it easier for the reader. Have a great day Star Mississippi 19:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

COIN thread

Hello Star Mississippi, If you have the opportunity I wonder if you might take a look at the following COIN thread [4] and let me know your thoughts. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll try to get to it later this week if still an issue. My on wiki time is limited right now. Thanks for flagging @Axad12 Star Mississippi 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 17

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I don't agree that the deletion review of Jairam Kumar Mahato should have been closed because the OP was blocked. There was a consensus among participants to restore this article to Draft space and there is always the possibility that this editor could be unblocked or someone else would like to work on this draft. Could you amend this closure? I'll happily restore the article to Draft space then. Thank you for considering this request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated but sort of not unrelated, can you please delete Mission Swaraj per your close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 19? Was tempundel'd for DRV, it is fully-protected so I can't tag with a CSD template. Pinging Cryptic also as the tempundel'er. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ooph, I made a mess of that DRV @Daniel.  Done Thanks also @Cryptic for the format fix.

@Liz here you go: Draft:Jairam Kumar Mahato. If you're going to work on it, I'd advocate the earlier revisions, but it's all there. No consideration needed, I offered the draft in their other DRV. I'm just in favor of not wasting community time when the outcome is clear, which the deletion was. Star Mississippi 14:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wrong section closed

I think this was a misclick! :-) 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4995:96E5:1BDF:7B9F (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks so much for flagging, IP 2A! Star Mississippi 16:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Denpina

Might want to revoke TPA. C F A 00:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks for the cleanup while I was offline. How dare I take a moment to eat. The nerve of some admins ;-) ) Star Mississippi 00:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You mean, you don't achieve immortality when you receive the mop? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not only that, but there's no corps of volunteers catering to our every whim. 0/10, do not recommend yet I'm here for something like a decade. :D Star Mississippi 01:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Hi Star Mississippi, Thank you for your support and contributions to Wikimedia:) Baqi:) (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Jannatulbaqi for your note and all you do as well! Star Mississippi 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words:) Baqi:) (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium

Hi, this was a really frustrating discussion as the stadium clearly passes WP:GNG, but only one of the !voters who didn't want to keep the article actually interacted with the sources, and even then it was just the first batch of sources I found. All of the other arguments were essentially small stadiums aren't inherently notable. There's now an edit war going on as the other voter is trying to un-do the redirect, which I completely support, but I haven't interacted and am trying to figure out what the best course of action is here. I don't want to un-do the redirect, DRV doesn't seem appropriate yet - I think relisting would be easiest, would that be something you're willing to do? SportingFlyer T·C 19:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer (talk page watcher) For what it's worth, it looks like Sir Sputnik is aware of the situation. Perhaps you can talk to them. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no particularly strong opinions on the question of notability here. Between the author's borderline bludgeoning of the AfD and willingness to restore content despite the AfD result, my concern is one of respect for community decisions. I've already advised them to take the issue to DRV. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SportingFlyer @Sir Sputnik @I dream of horses and adding @Paradygmaty apologies for the delay, I was offline. My read is the debate bordered on the depth of sourcing and it wasn't proven to the satisfaction of varied participants. I'm not familiar enough with sports notability to know off hand if being a venue in 2025 changes anything now w/r/t notability.

I'd be happy for it to be relisted as I don't think DRV is necessarily going to overturn. Let me know if that's an acceptable outcome and I'll do so this evening. I will be off line much of the work week and would be happy for another admin to relist if I'm not online and this isn't resolved this evening. Thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 22:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, and also: (SportingFlyer—Sir Sputnik—Paradygamty) As someone who's a new page patroller, I've looked at the sources in the article and have concerns about whether or not they're independent. If an IAR relisting will help, that's fine, but that would require everyone respect consensus. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

A relist would be fantastic. I dream of horses (talk · contribs): The sources in the last version that was deleted aren't the best, but I see no issue with the tvp.pl article, there are other articles mentioned in the AfD, and stadiony.net has a list of articles about the stadium dating back over a decade, and articles such as [5], [6], [7] which are simple but clearly cover the stadium, so it's less about the sources in the article and more about what sources are out there. SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer This bit of unsolicited advice comes from personal experience: You're going to need to be the one to add the sources that are out there to the article. Otherwise, no one will do it. It's a weird manifestation of the bystander effect on Wikipedia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, but at the moment, I'm simply trying to make sure it doesn't get deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 07:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

SportingFlyer raises a valid point about the flawed AfD process, where the stadium's notability was questioned without fully engaging with the available sources. The sources in the article seem fine now, but there's always room for improvement. Ensuring that the references are independent and reliable is key, and while the current ones meet the notability guidelines, adding more solid sources could further strengthen the case. Relisting the discussion might be a good approach to allow for a fresh review and the inclusion of any additional sources to better support the article’s notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again all. @I dream of horses @Paradygmaty @Sir Sputnik @SportingFlyer. Also flagging for @Toadspike who had accidentally edited the closed AfD in case they want to weigh in now. I have relisted the discussion but despite learning group ping (thanks IDoH!) I didn't trust it not to break in the template. I'm not watching the AfD so please let me know here or ping me there if you need something further. Star Mississippi 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Star Mississippi, I noticed that you deleted my created redirect, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I'm under the assumption it was under G4; however you didn't allow time for an RFD, the consensus to delete was 9 years ago when under a different target, and you have not left a deletion statement. Any thoughts would be appreciated. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Yovt. The redirect was actually revisted in April Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_27#From_Wikipedia,_the_free_encyclopedia, (courtesy @CactusWriter) where there was still support for deletion before it was speedied so I don't feel comfortable in unilaterally overturning. I think your best course is to go to DRV (under 3, if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;) and get consensus for a restoration. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 01:20, 3 December 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…
301		Asif Nazrul (talk)	Add sources
122		Canterbury Christ Church University (talk)	Add sources
2,024		Mensa International (talk)	Add sources
744		Student–People's uprising (talk)	Add sources
233		Auburn Correctional Facility (talk)	Add sources
12		Sultana Yeasmin Laila (talk)	Add sources
335		Curfew (talk)	Cleanup
39		Farhan Faiyaaz (talk)	Cleanup
73		Aynaghar (talk)	Cleanup
941		Non-cooperation movement (2024) (talk)	Expand
658		Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (talk)	Expand
230		Bangladesh quota reform movement (talk)	Expand
208		Sunset Beach (TV series) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
694		As the World Turns (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
107		6 Foot 7 Foot (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
56		ArkUI (talk)	Merge
46		Hanover Park, Illinois (talk)	Merge
29		Patriarchy in China (talk)	Merge
6		Cerro Castillo, Chile (talk)	Wikify
9		Beyond the Door (film series) (talk)	Wikify
216		Lego Technic (talk)	Wikify
3		Abeaseman Community Day Senior High School (talk)	Orphan
3		Anna de Belocca (talk)	Orphan
5		Curtsy App and Blog (talk)	Orphan
34		Hanif Sanket (talk)	Stub
3		Lucien Hibbert (talk)	Stub
448		Bangladesh protests (2022–2024) (talk)	Stub
20		Ityadi (talk)	Stub
15		Ali Amjad Government Girls' High School (talk)	Stub
24		Student politics of Bangladesh (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) 23:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

COIN thread

Hello Star Mississippi, I see that you are scaling back your on-wiki time but if you have the opportunity I'd be grateful for your intervention on the following COIN thread [8].

It is an open and shut case of a self-admitted representative of a pressure group continuing to use Wikipedia for promotion and advocacy, having previously been pointed towards the COI policy on their talkpage.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience @Axad12 and apologies for the delay. Work has been busy and coupled with some travel has meant limited availability. I have blocked the editor due to repeated attempts to discuss this without success. Star Mississippi 02:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your intervention here. I wish you well in both your off-wiki and on-wiki endeavours.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)