User talk:Star Mississippi

Star Mississippi is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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

This is Star Mississippi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21: 45 days

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi Again! Got me hooked. I was able to free up some time and made some revisions to Draft:J. R. Preston. Hope this is a bit of a help getting this article to mainspace. Seems he is a truly notable person. It does still need some work, it feels like a credible start. — ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Thank you @ERcheck. Great research. I do agree he's notable and apologies @FloridaArmy for letting this and others slip through cracks. Star Mississippi 14:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think it is time to promote it to mainspace? — ERcheck (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought you were still working on it and didn't want to move mid work like our friend Mr. Moise. Feel free to move it when you're done or I'll do it when I log back on tomorrow morning @ERcheck Star Mississippi 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like all is in order! These few biographies were fun to work on. — ERcheck (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi User:Star Mississippi. After you commented about the LRC on my talk page, I came over to your talk page and found this comment. Curious about the draft, I made some edits to Draft:Theodore Sydney Moïse. Check them out. Feels like notability has been established — he has a painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and one in the Smithsonian American Art Museum's collection. — ERcheck (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I firmly agree. Thanks so much @ERcheck for the eyes on it and the help. @FloridaArmy apologies for losing track of this one, I will move it now. Star Mississippi 01:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! This was an interesting biography to work on. BTW, you moved the article in the middle of my making some additional edits. You may find the final section of the article interesting. — ERcheck (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, and personally so since I had a college friend who went to a school named for Grace Dodge! Love a good art mystery. The drafts @FloridaArmy flags are always fascinating in one manner or another, and they know I have a soft spot for the arts, as well as overlooked southern topics. Hopefully I didn't mess up your edit with the move. Star Mississippi 02:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:ERcheck! Nice work. Interesting entry. Hopefully some more of his art will be included in time. Thanks also to StarMississippi. Much appreciated. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welome @FloridaArmy. — ERcheck (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apologies for the pings, FA. Wanted to restore this to work on. Star Mississippi 21:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first I wondered about her individual notability, but reading the references, there was more to be told. I made a major re-write and believe it is ready for Mainspace. What do you think @Star Mississippi? — ERcheck (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move it to Mainspace if you deem it ready. — ERcheck (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely and apologies for the delay on both @ERcheck. So glad our paths crossed as I was definitely unable to prioritize these great drafts. I've moved it. Star Mississippi 16:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for moving it! — ERcheck (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Temple High School (Mississippi)

Here's a former Mississippi high school with interesting history but rejected. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for flagging @FloridaArmy. I was offline for most of the holidays and @Ktkvtsh: got to this before I was able (thank you). Will see if there's anything I can add now that it's in mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SM! You did such a nice job on Alfred Edgar Smith I am assigning you Draft:Valena C. Jones Normal School. No good deed goes unpunished! All is forgiven. I hope your year is going terrific. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never mind homework :D and feel free to flag anything I can help with. I was reading the work of Candacy Taylor and Smith was mentioned. I was glad to see it was your draft since I knew you wouldn't mind my crashing it.

GOing to batch this with the others so neither they nor this archive like the first batch did. New Year is off to a healthy but suprisingly cold start. I hope you're also well. Star Mississippi 02:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment to myself to keep these from archiving Star Mississippi 03:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January music

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that's fascinating musical history. Thanks, as always, for sharing your insight and for including me this month @Gerda Arendt Star Mississippi 14:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, friend. Music has such power of healing, which the world very much needs right now. Be well Star Mississippi 19:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - yes! - Today is Schubert's birthday. I added a pic of music-making to his article (and my story) and raised a question on the talk, regarding the lead image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Drbogdan comment

During the unban request, Drbogdan linked his livejournal account. If you follow that through, it's clear he's using wikipedia as a webhost still by calling a historical version of the page "my profile". I don't know if this is a case for deleting a userpage history for abuse? Or if he's found a bit of a loophole to WP:NOTWEBHOST in this case. Or if nobody particularly cares, I suppose. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Warrenmck. My reading is that is more likely applied to editors without a history. Whether Dr. B's can be considered productive or not, he has as history. I may be wrong on that and you're welcome to flag it for broader look. Thanks for flagging in either case. Star Mississippi 18:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Bališ

You closed this AFD as a redirect - except he is not mentioned on the new target page and likely never will be, given his minor association with the club... Giant Snowman 12:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with it being deleted at RfD, or him being mentioned.

Do you think I closed it incorrectly? Happy to relist to save bureaucracy Star Mississippi 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Petsy916 moved your user page to theirs. I'm not entirely certain how to undo that move without accidentally breaking things, so I'll leave it to you. If you actually control that account (I'm all but certain you don't), feel free to lift the block on that account. --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Yamla and @Cryptic for the block and clean up. Not sure how I made that new friend. Star Mississippi 14:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw3

What I wanted was for the template to be changed to a softer tone of voice.

As it is: "Please stop." (Full sentence)

Proposed edit: "Please stop ..." (Expand sentence beyond the word stop.)

I would've done this but the template is protected so that only admins can edit it. style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification @CyberTheTiger. Unfortunately this is not an edit I can implement due to tech limitations in my current set up. Star Mississippi 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

aren't you an admin of Wikipedia? style="color #964b00 Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am, but I have been editing primarily on mobile, which has its limitations. Please get consensus for your requested change and if no admin is watching, file an edit request. As I read the discussion, there is not yet broad support for your change. Star Mississippi 01:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

iPad, single quotes

Thanks again @CaptainEek for this fix, and @Daniel for one forever ago on DRV. Do you two or any other TPS know how to properly do single quotation marks on an iPad? I’ve tried to use it to complement my otherwise typical non availability when away from my desktop, but I seem more limited than I expected (no scripts, etc.) Thanks! Star Mississippi 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough that correction was mostly accidental. At first I thought it was my oppose vote and I'm like oh that's weird why did the formatting do that, so I corrected it. Then I saw it was your oppose vote, and was like well...they'll probably appreciate it :) Can't say I use apple devices so not sure how to fix that... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated, but hate when editors have to clean up after me. Thank you! And yes, we seem to be in the minority. I was going to ask @Cullen328 for their help, but they use (or reference, in their essay) a device I’m not familiar with Star Mississippi 19:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use Android phones and Windows computers. Sorry, I am not an Apple guy except when it comes to pie and the Beatles. Cullen328 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Settings on the iPad, then tap General. Now tap Keyboard and slip the slider to off on Smart Punctuation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Sirfurboy. Or perhaps thank you since I can drop dropping reverse quotation marks all over the place. Much appreciated.

@Cullen328 I'm an Apple person, but new to iPad world. My desktop doesn't do that, or I turned it off years ago and forgot how. Star Mississippi 21:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Don't know about the iPad, but on iPhone I'd press and hold the (slanted) single quote in the 123 menu to get other options including the straight one. Same method works to get n-dash instead of hyphen, accented versions of vowels and so on. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I knew that for accented letters, but not for punctuation.

I've turned them off for now but will mind that if I need it for other things on the iPad I'm not yet aware of. Star Mississippi 13:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Shanmugam (CPIM)

Please could you refund P. Shanmugam (CPIM) as Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM) so that it retains its edit history.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toddy1. This is done. Noting here as I will at their talk, I have p-blocked the primary editor from editing the article. Another admin is welcome to consider but it is my opinion that nothing good will come from this. Star Mississippi 14:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Consider deleting P. Shanmugam (CPIM) under WP:R2, and we have to ensure it doesn’t get moved to the main space without going through AfC. GrabUp - Talk 14:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Now R2ed.

I think the p-block will prevent that @GrabUp but open to other suggestions. I want to leave it accessible if @Toddy1 or other editors are interested in working on it. Star Mississippi 14:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in doing a bit - but I am busy right now. Soman said that he/she would look at in a few weeks and do a bit - see User talk:Soman#Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM). Regarding AfC, I do not have a lot of faith in it - I once submitted an article for review - the reviewer took 3 minutes on mine and 3 minutes on the one he/she did before mine - doing it properly takes a lot longer than that. Luckily for the one before mine, someone else moved it from draft to mainspace and it is still there now.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My on wiki time is never super consistent @Toddy1 but happy to help on AfC if I'm online when you need it. You or @Soman are welcome to ping me on this as well as I'm not watching the draft. Star Mississippi 16:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Please could you review Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM). Soman did most of the work improving it; I only helped a little. Do you think it is ready to move back to mainspace?-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning @Toddy1. I don't have time today, but I'll look at it as soon as I'm able. Feel free to ping another reviewer in the interim as well. Star Mississippi 13:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too much salt

I agree with you - not only is it bad for blood pressure (so my doctor tells me), it also makes identifying repeated recreations more difficult. I would rather a sock recreated their latest attempt at recreating their vanity page at a title that had been deleted a dozen times, it makes it so much easier to notice. Between middle names, prfessional titles, disambiguators in parenthesis and whatever else, there's no way that salting can actually stop someone from recreating their spammy page - better to keep it all in one place in my opinion. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Much easier to track.

I know there are some instances where a title blacklist may help, but I'm not familiar enough with that to know if & when it would be a good outcome. Thanks for your assist on that AfD @Girth Summitas it helped put it to bed. Star Mississippi 21:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Hi Star, how are you doing? I am still confused on your closure, although it's last year already, but I'd think that was a bad closure. Please revise Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SafariScribe. Doing well thanks, and I hope the same for you. While I see your argument, the consensus here was against retention as participants were not convinced the guideline or sourcing was met. If you want to go to DRV, you're of course welcome but I think the easiest path here is to work on it in draft to allow you/other interested editors to find the sourcing and then move it back. Thoughts? Happy to draftify if you'd like. Star Mississippi 13:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February music

On the main page today, 300 years after its first performance, Bach's cantata BWV 125, - a lovely very intimate piece, with peace and joy in the title. Enjoy listening with score - I discovered that only now! - Today is also the birthday of James Joyce, who has an article by many authors. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

today: a German-born Spanish art collector, - the video in her honour is remarkable, as what she gave the world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find today's birthday child particularly inspiring, by enthusiasm and determination. That was - believe it or not - a pictured DYK in 2021, without the last line though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart. The video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's is about an opera singer on her 35th birthday, - don't miss the short video which shows her in movement, - they had a Japanese movement coach for the production that impressed me in 2022. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

Special:Contributions/2804:D45:963E:EF00:C992:D0BE:A203:E82D has been putting in fake death dates on a number of BLPs without sources. Looks like vandalism. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! From @Ponyo's block of 2804:D45:9682:1B00:51F2:A409:79BE:768F (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and same targets, guessing they're not the only two. Ponyo, feel free to take the one@Zenomonoz reported over. It was a stopgap block and then I saw the other one. Star Mississippi 03:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've soft blocked 2804:D45:9600:0:0:0:0:0/40 for a year. If you look at the contribs related to time and dates from that range going back to 2021, it's mostly this same editor. Account creation is enabled to help limit any collateral. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always @Ponyo. Slowly learning ranges. Star Mississippi 02:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moribundum

Hi Star Mississippi -- Could I ask you to take another look at this? I believe the editor is good faith, and they would not be the first to be wound up by overenthusiastic interpretations of the medical project's guideline on reliable sources. One of the sources that is being questioned is a book from Springer, another a journal from Wiley -- while they might not be ideal medical sources for the uses in question, we are not talking someone adding medical content sourced from blogs, popular newspapers or even research papers. The copyright issue seems to be from 2022 and I think they do now understand that they are not allowed to copy material to Wikipedia, even if it is widely copied around the net. At heart this seems to be a content dispute pursued on one side by (over-)stringent interpretations of MEDRS, and on the other by exasperation resulting in incivility. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note @Espresso Addict. I'm going to respond there to keep it central, but appreciate the flag as I somehow missed their last post despite the ping and my using them. Silly gremlins! Star Mississippi 02:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you'd prefer me to shift this to a proper SPI. For now, I've put it in the present discussion. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zenomonoz that's a question to be definitively answered by an SPI clerk. I think it's better for record keeping,but it will be a behavioral analysis as the prior accounts you identified (thank you) will be too stale for CU. Star Mississippi 14:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somebody/somewhere I should ask, or just leave it on ANI until that happens? Zenomonoz (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question/sub-section there is fine as is. Merging it now will probably need a tool any way. @Espresso Addict any particular thoughts? I'm not super active in SPI Star Mississippi 14:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work in SPI at all, sorry. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Espresso Addict. @Zenomonoz it looks like Spicy weighed in with all needed information as far as an API and you and Moribundum have been in touch with ArbComm so probably as resolved as it's getting for now. Star Mississippi 16:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t contact ArbComm btw (am I supposed to?) Zenomonoz (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @Zenomonoz, I thought you had shared your findings. I'd recommend you emailing a permalink to that sub thread to them. You don't have to. Star Mississippi 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

who should I email? Zenomonoz (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your prior. User:Arbitration Committee has the means of reaching out depending on whether you have email enabled. Star Mississippi 22:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inappropriate reasons for initial ban + admins refused to remove ban for non specific reasons despite evidence that it was inappropriate. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tarlby for the heads up. I'll respond there to keep it central. Star Mississippi 01:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is an issue, but in their most recent unblock request on their talk page User talk:Moribundum they say they disclosed one account to ArbCom "disclosed old account at arb com as requested". During the ANI the user said they had multiple other accounts. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zenomonoz

I don't think it's a major issue, but you're welcome to leave that on their Talk if you think it will be helpful to the reviewing admin. Star Mississippi 22:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I didn’t, but I did leave this comment which Moribundum removed for harassment. Ultimately, it’s their talk page but normally in an unblock request others are allowed to comment. Ah well maybe I'll let it go. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to let it go for now unless you want to flag the reaction. Personally, I wouldn't, but you'd be within your right to so entirely your call @Zenomonoz Star Mississippi 14:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request Submit this article

draft:Ramkripalyadavg_(YouTuber) Please correct it and submit it 2409:408A:E9F:A27A:0:0:D4CB:9905 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in editing this draft. Please respect consensus. cc @Bonadea Star Mississippi 15:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Davi Santiago de Souza

I've been watching the campaign on commons to get pictures of the subject and his books uploaded, 100% of whcih are copyvios, and uploaded by two authors whom I have flagged for Commons sockpuppetry. I echo your critique of the article sufficient to send it to AfD. I am not asking you to comment there. If you do I have no intention of seeking to influence your opinion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also filed an SPI. May be meat or UPE, but still... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Timtrent @UtherSRG I was cleaning out AfC in mainspace and didn't have time to look further than tagging it. I was surprised that their second edit was User_talk:Dream_Focus#Request_for_Assistance_with_Davi_Santiago_de_Souza's_Encyclopedia_Entry but figured DF may have been a mentor or something since that system sometimes makes for precocious edits. I am close to p-blocking them from the mainspace article, but perhaps they'll take your advice before that's needed @Timtrent. Star Mississippi 21:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have turned their attitude around. I hope so. I deploy persistent and determined politeness, while never giving a millimetre 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These edits show that I was premature in my hope and that I am mistaken.

Might I suggest a formal shot across the bows backed up by a promise of action if they do not desist. They are WP:NOTHERE so far. I have given them a clue that action may be heading their way on their talk page 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just p-blocked. Longer note on their Talk. Star Mississippi 00:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A firm but fair outcome The behaviours had gone o more than long enough. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent @UtherSRG given @The Squirrel Conspiracy's note, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enzo Duart now exists. Unfortunaely I think we'll find more friends based too on your first comment here, Tim. Let me know if I'm missing any pieces. Star Mississippi 15:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davi Santiago de Souza is worth noticing. I left a comment on the one you just mentioned and will leave the converse comment on this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Sralidy is indeffed on ptWiki! Duck sock of Jessica 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and it was Jessica's photo they just "found".

Sorry for the SPI mess. Not sure how I missed yours. Star Mississippi 16:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was Uther's. The clerks are used to it. Now they are alerted it is best left to them. We well meaning folk can cause an enormous mess with our goodwill.

Jessica's uploads now have permission requests. I like w:pt:WP:PATO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And @PhilKnight just cleaned it up. Something about a knight to the rescue in there :D (thank you) Star Mississippi 16:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I requested global locks: meta:Steward requests/Global#Various socks and cross wiki spam - Lock all. They have been locked. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yupyup. Here's how I (usually fail at) ensuring we don't make duplicate SPIs.... I do a "What links here" on both the sock and master's talk pages. If either are already on an SPI, then I know to use that SPI and not make a new one. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks on that, and for putting an early end to that AfD.

I am in awe of the time and energy spammers have for this nonsense. Star Mississippi 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figure that was an appropriate use of WP:IAR. I try not to do that often, and I'm glad I chose the right time to do it. Yeah, I don't fully understand why these spammers work this hard for no gain. They must believe that they can get something past us... which means they probably have. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Ah, my friend, without them Wikipedia would be less fun. Look at the enjoyment this bunch have provided so far and doubtless will provide again. We can be Hercule Poirot from our keyboards. We can work as a loosely constituted ad hoc team.

I think it was a snow close after removing socks, wasn't it? IAR is good, too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... they do add some excitement. :D And you're right, SNOW applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFDLand

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I'm not sure what is going on but it seems like these days we have even fewer editors participating in AFD discussions that normal which was low to begin with. Any idea of where we could go put out an appeal for more help? It's hard to find consensus when the only participant is a nominator and one person who has no opinion at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz. Sorry for the delay, you pinged just after I logged off. I'm not sure of the answer, although I do see the issue as well. There have been a lot more relists. Pinging @OwenX to see if they have any insight. And major kudos to both of you for the Trump adjacent closes. I couldn't. Happy to step up too where else needed. Star Mississippi 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious problem. I keep finding myself more often having to bend our QUORUM rules just so I can close a triple-relisted AfD as something other than NC. One thing I'm trying to do more of is acknowledge by name in my closing statement those who put in the effort to do a proper source analysis. These people are the true heroes of AFDLand, and they need to see their efforts really make a difference.

I can think of at least one AfD regular who is getting worn down seeing her well-thought-out and meticulously BEFOREd nominations of third-tier footballers and cricketers fail due to a couple of "Keep - he's famous around here" votes, or worse yet - return through the backdoor after a brief draftification sans-AfC.

People want to see their work here making a difference and being recognized. Content creators get that by seeing the page they wrote thrive. AfD participants don't get such a direct feedback. We need to find a way to provide that positive feedback, or we'll keep losing our regular participants. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we need to provide "positive feedback" at AfD, especially if we're talking about deleting something. In my experience, it's a lot harder to argue that something should be kept. We're just discussing whether something is notable enough for the project. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the positive feedback should be limited to one side or the other. Whoever puts in the work to do a proper source analysis, whether !voting 'Keep' or 'Delete', should be recognized for their effort, regardless of the outcome. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is harder to argue "Keep" because those editors, who take AFDs seriously, need to go out looking for sources which can be time-consuing. But I don't think OwenX was taking one side over another just wanting acknowledge those editors who put in a sincere effort at considering AFDs, no matter what their stance is. I've been closing AFDs since autumn of 2020 and since then I've gone to 5 or 6 regulars and thanked them or given them a barnstar for their help reviewing AFDs. They are really exceptional. And most of them have been pleased but they don't think they are doing anything remarkable. But I should make these posts more often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the effort to !vote keep or delete is the same, as long as the effort is actually taken to look for and evaluate sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you collectively have hit the nail on the head, it's work to find the sources and then address whether or not they speak to notability/are WP:SIRS, etc. It's much easier to cast a drive by !vote in either direction. It also doesn't help when we have admins casting !votes that are out of sync with current consensus simply because they disagree with that consensus.

I'm not sure what the answer is to be honest. You've tried a lot @Liz in discouraging flooding of AfD and I don't think that has been as much of a problem, there just isn't engagement with AfDs (and AN, as you noted on that topic ban discussion). Star Mississippi 14:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although my original post was about a shortage of regular editors at AFDLand, I worry about our admin corps, too. Didn't we just elect like a dozen new admins? Except for a handful, I don't see them around the usual places where admins generally help out. Maybe they are off, working in a niche area that is not on my daily trek around the project or a noticeboard I don't frequent. We could surely use a few more eyes and policy-based opinions at AN and AE. I mean, since COVID-19 (and even since last summer), many longtime admins have started to depart and we need the help! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things don't look too bad when it comes to closing AfDs. In my morning scan of 8-day old stragglers, I rarely find more than a couple still open, usually of the contentious, political kind y'all leave for me to handle... Of course, that's because you've already closed the other 100+ the previous evening. There are a few AfD regulars who'd make a good admin. I'm worried about losing their participation as !voters if they are promoted, but we should certainly consider running those who are interested through RfA. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add spending an hour or so contributing to AfDs to my daily list. Took me an hour to make assertions in 14 needy processes. Getting punchy at the end, I'll confess. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the freshly-elected November 2024 admins have taken on the new task of bulk mass AE protections in ARBPIA in response to preemptive protections being explicitly authorized in WP:ARBPIA5. See the giant walls of text at WP:AELOG/2025/PIA, which looks unprecedented. I found at least four admin names there doing mass protections who were elected in November; to be clear, I think that is respectable commendable work. As for AfD, I used to be an on-and-off regular there but lost interest and motivation to do that for a while, but still check into SM's talk page here sometimes since it seems like a friendly community hub with good discussions. Left guide (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and @DoubleGrazing pre and post election has been a major force at AfC. I'm not knocking any admin for where they choose or choose not to work, just that there aren't enough of us which hopefully the latest RfC will address. Star Mississippi 14:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopular opinion: {{sofixit}}. You shouldn't be closing afds if you can't contribute meaningfully to them as a non-closer. Relisting is not a net positive when we regularly see daily subpages with half or more of the discussions originating from a different day, and clearing out the page for eight days ago isn't "fixing a backlog" unless everything on it is actually closed and not just reshuffled. If there's an afd that old without enough commentary to close it, add a comment.

Also, the more closers treat afds as suggestion boxes and substitute their own interpretation of policies and guidelines for the peons', the less motivated said peons are to bother commenting on afds. —Cryptic 05:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to actually look at my AfD stats @Cryptic but I feel like I've been closing more as N/C. I feel that unless it's a BLP or other problematic content (usually failed verification), if people can't make a case that it needs to go, it's fine if it hangs on until it can be improved or a quorum can form. We've gone from the holidays to summer to there's just a lower level of participation. I don't know if it's that we've reached a place where AfC/speedy/PROD take the load off and what's left is complex, or just that so many of the old backlogs have been pared down. Does it hurt the project if we have a perma stub on a pre-internet athlete in a country where English reporting isn't common and we don't have a lot of people capable in X language? Does it matter whether place A was a siding/town when all the sourcing htat may indicate GEOLAND or not is offline or non English? Probably not Star Mississippi 00:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm admittedly biased since I close and relist AFDs on a daily basis but I don't think it's closers' decisions that are keeping participants away. I think it is because in the past, editors often spent a lot of time, finding sources and evaluating articles and when the AFD closures don't go their way, it's discouraging. I can't say I blame them, I'd wonder too, if my time was better spent doing other tasks. We definitely have fewer editors making "Keep" arguments and a lot more flimsy "Delete" arguments that aren't even arguments, they are just "Me, too" opinions.

And we could really use your insight helping with more AFD closures, Cryptic, if you have the time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be quite a waste of time, yes. I must have spent a couple of hours fruitlessly looking for sources for the skateboarder that you (Liz) just deleted, when it's way out of my usual editing sphere, just because I hate losing things that are probably notable to deletion simply because no-one can be bothered to look for sources, but I'd be far better off just quietly creating articles on notable things that interest me and that actually have available online sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking since I just closed it and it's not a canvassing issue. I'm just really not sure what other options there are for things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B1t and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kristin Brooks Hope Center. There's a language issue and a small org one, where at some point we just have to stop spinning the wheel. I am very glad to be done ( i think?) with all the Indiana villages. Star Mississippi 14:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just ran into the noms that kicked off this thread @Liz. Alas I had to N/C most of them despite being willing to fudge NQ a little as @OwenX referenced as there just isn't enough assessment or opinions strong enough to !vote. The information is helpful and way more than a bolded vote, but overall amounts to "meh" and we kick the can six months Star Mississippi 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025

@Star Mississippi Can you please tell me how to nominate any article which has previously gone through AfD but survived it? XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XYZ 250706! Assuming it has been at least six months, WP:AFDHOWTO, specifically "The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)", will guide you through. Twinkle will make that much easier if you use it. Star Mississippi 18:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Thank you for the guidance. Can you please tell whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.L. Santhosh and B. L. Santhosh are related to same subject or not? XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are about the same person @XYZ 250706 but not eligible for WP:G4 as the article is much different to the one deleted in 2020. If you believe Santhosh still does not meet notability guidelines you're free to re-nominate without any issue. Star Mississippi 18:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was another discussion regarding it : {{subst:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. L. Santhosh}}. So it should be third nomination, am I right? XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Can you please frame the initial steps for nominating the deletion of the article? I will give reasoning centring Wikipedia policies. I am facing problems with this for being nominated multiple times. XYZ 250706 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here you go @XYZ 250706 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. L. Santhosh (2nd nomination) Star Mississippi 19:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Should I fill replacing your comment or after your comment? XYZ 250706 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After my comment. Instead of !voting as you normally would, phrase it as Nomination statement or something similar to make it clear. (about to hop offline for a few hours so if anything time sensitive, ping the folks at teahouse Star Mississippi 19:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct @XYZ 250706.

What I'll do is make a procedural nomination and then you can fill it in. It will also show you the steps needed should you make another. Star Mississippi 19:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atd?

Hi. Quick question regarding your closure here. What's "Atd" please? AndyJones (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forget I asked. I've found it. Alternatives to deletion. I looked it up and got Awaken the Dragon, which didn't seem to follow!! AndyJones (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay and thank you for reminder that we need to layoff acronym soup! Although dragons could be fun! Star Mississippi 18:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AndyJones,

Wikipedia:Glossary is a helpful page to check for abbreviations although I had to add ATD to that list as it wasn't there. It's not comprehensive but it has a lot of commonly used terms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks both! AndyJones (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

@Star Mississippi Can you please mention any new page reviewer or source analyser in Wikipedia by the help of whom I can analyse sourcing of some political ideologies? XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't think they edit much in politics @XYZ 250706, but @Cunard is among the best source analyzers I know. I dabble more in AFC, but I think @Robert McClenon may also be an NPP. He's definitely a good source reviewer as well. Either of them may have some recs as well. Star Mississippi 00:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:XYZ 250706 - Is there an article for which you would like a source analysis done? I mainly do source analyses in connection with Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV Early Closer barnstar!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I couldn't find a Gordian Sword barnstar for saving us the trouble of going through seven days of DRV each time, so this one will have to do. ;) Owen× ☎ 18:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely going to move in with my ninja star which was a similar type of "let's make it up" fun. Thanks, as always, for the help Owen! Star Mississippi 00:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion please - Rev Prof Bruce Hedman

On 3 March 2017, an article on Bruce A. Hedman concluded an AfD, with a deletion conclusion for lack of notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion-Bruce A. Hedman. The most recent version can be found here.

I want your opinion on whether or an article on Prof Hedman would pass a notability assessment now.

I discovered that he was granted won a John Templeton Foundation prize for his 1992 paper cited below. The award is given by the John Templeton Foundation, the same organization who gives out the prestigious Templeton Prize.

Article: Rev Bruce A Hedman, PhD (March 1993). "Cantor's Concept of Infinity: Implications of Infinity for Contingence" (pdf). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 45 (1). Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation: 10–16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

Reference for the Award: "Bulletin Board". The Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation & Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation. 35 (2). April–May 1993. Retrieved 2025-02-16. ...received a John Templeton Foundation award for a paper... among the winners: mathematician Bruce Hedman of the U. of Connecticut...{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

Hedman's unique combination of academic and pastoral roles distinguishes him as a notable/interesting figure.

Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Star Mississippi, but it looks as if the Templeton Foundation prize was considered at the previous AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @ERcheck, I was offline and thanks as always EA for your insight. I agree with @Espresso Addict that it was considered and consensus was that it wasn't an award of sufficient prestige despite the granting organization. That said, it was nearly 8 years ago and I don't think anyone would question you for giving it another go either in draft of mainspace. Academics are when I really miss DGG, but I know Randykitty edits in academics if you want to ping them. Happy to lend a hand too if I can. Star Mississippi 00:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty's AFD/PROD focus is on academic journals (that's pretty narrow) but it might be able to offer some help. And I miss DGG every day! I went to him with all of my questions about drafts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it's almost two years. I think of him always, but also any time I'm in a physical library. Me too @Liz. Surprised we didn't run into one another there more often. Star Mississippi 03:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article

@Star Mississippi, @EA, and @Liz — I've created a draft article: As I looked for additional information on notability, I found his particular fields of study, including combining mathematics and theology and ministry, even more so make him unique and likely worthy of an article. In addition, his work on Cramer's rule — see the section on his Academic career — is particularly notable. Please take a look at the draft here --> User:ERcheck/Draft3, and let me know what you think. — ERcheck (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow missed this @ERcheck. Looking now, or tomorrow evening. Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Star Mississippi! — ERcheck (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a move to mainspace here. While I'm not sure it would pass an AfD, I also don't see an obvious reason to file one. I think he's the typical academic (not at all sure about pastoral notability) who has done solid work in his field. Star Mississippi 02:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to Mainspace - Bruce Hedman. If you have a chance, please review and √. — ERcheck (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Star Mississippi — ERcheck (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption from User:Ian.joyner

After your final warning to this user not to be incivil, he left this message on HyperAccelerated's talk page, accusing him of having an "agenda". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for flagging @Helpful Raccoon (and also, wonderful handle!)

Blocked. They're welcome to show they can be a part of the community in an unblock. Star Mississippi 20:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for handling this. Really appreciate it. :) HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (3rd nomination) got a close. A reasonable one, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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	Title	Tagged with…
36	Strange Pilgrims (talk)	Add sources
37	Rafael Guastavino (talk)	Add sources
674	Ontario New Democratic Party (talk)	Add sources
26	Belgium–Germany border (talk)	Add sources
20	Cloverbelt Conference (talk)	Add sources
37	Astro Arena (TV channel) (talk)	Add sources
458	Natus Vincere (talk)	Cleanup
262	Tribeca Festival (talk)	Cleanup
380	Jawa Moto (talk)	Cleanup
91	West Town, Chicago (talk)	Expand
241	Ropz (talk)	Expand
3,563	Rikers Island (talk)	Expand
94	Barbara Kopple (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
33	Schübler Chorales (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
378	Email spam (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
30	2019 Northrop N-9M crash (talk)	Merge
7	Hampshire and Hampden Canal (talk)	Merge
12	Dinostratus' theorem (talk)	Merge
117	Emma Manners, Duchess of Rutland (talk)	Wikify
84	Long slow distance (talk)	Wikify
78	Rudy Giuliani during the September 11 attacks (talk)	Wikify
4	Milen Minkov (talk)	Orphan
24	LG AI Research (talk)	Orphan
28	Fitness Blender (talk)	Orphan
34	Xyp9x (talk)	Stub
127	Letter to His Father (talk)	Stub
6	Made in L.A. (2007 film) (talk)	Stub
3	Vicky Funari (talk)	Stub
39	Paul Matisse (talk)	Stub
11	Oskar Baum (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) 23:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]