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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

@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 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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I'd totally forgotten about that, but agree it's a good solution as far as that discussion Star Mississippi 02:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them get blanked by others after a ban. Is this something that's appropriate with Greg's user page (not user talk page)? Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Graywalls and thanks to you and @Netherzone for flagging the recent issues

I think I've only seen that when it's blanked and replaced, such as with WMF ban or CU notice. I don't recall seeing it often with community bans, but I could be misremembering. Star Mississippi 02:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose would it serve to blank his user page? Netherzone (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:, The page would be a vehicle for him to flaunt his work on other Wikiprojects page and encourage his hand picked editors to bloat up articles he's stated. Graywalls (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rachael Adrino (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Winston Utomo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there. First of all, thank you for the suggestions. For the article, by your latest message, what else should be added so that this article can stand alone or should it be combined with the IDN article with the current conditions? Since this is my first draft and previously this has been summarized according to the references because of the many promotional phrases in the early draft, do you have any additional suggestions for me, please?

Rachael Adrino (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rachael Adrino. I don't think there's anything you can add. WP:NOPAGE is a good guideline for when to write a separate page and when to include the information in a broader topic, which makes it easier for the reader. Does that help? Happy to tag it for the merger if you'd like Star Mississippi 15:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'll read it ASAP. One thing, is the merger page same with redirect page (when you click Winston Utomo, it will go to page IDN)? or in this case there are differents among them? Rachael Adrino (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title will direct the reader to information about Utomo within the IDN article. In a merger, information is carried over whereas a redirect it's generally simply a pointer to an extant section Star Mississippi 13:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You warned this editor for UPE and for knitting socks. Any additional information you wish to add would be useful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I've been a bit busy today and not up-to-date on discussions but how did a discussion on a topic ban, in a few hours turn into a consensus to site ban this editor? Color me surprised. I mean, I think I thought an indefinite block might happen at some point in the future but I didn't see that particular discussion closing in favor of this outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz. I'm about to log off but you're welcome to reopen it. My read was there was no dissent at all. Not sure how familiar you are with their history, but the account appears to have been created to agitate, rather than improve the project. Alas they are not the only one using current political shenanigans as a cover. But like I said if you believe my read was wrong, please do reopen the discussion as I don't expect to have substantive on wiki time until later tomorrow. Star Mississippi 03:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just read through their talk page from the last three days and I can see what happened. I advised them to drop the stick and move on and it looks like between them and Thumpus, they doubled down on their complaining and mischaracterizing the project. Things were going downhill when I really thought they were about ready to drop the dispute and go back to editing. But I was wrong. Since I closed the WP:AN, partially out of discussion exhaustion, I don't want to intrude in this ANI discussion. Sorry for questioning your decision-making. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You never intrude @Liz and please always question. And you hit the nail on the head, neither of them was good for the other editing productively. I think this is the challenge new editors face, they don't understand that we (project) don't function like other sources of information. And you see public officials who get louder until they get their way, and they think that's a path forward. Plus new accounts jumping right into articles fraught with political talking points sadly does not end well. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 13:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second the request to re-open the discussion, per WP:CBAN site ban discussions must be open for 72 hours. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay @Primefac, I was offline. At this stage, I'm going to decline not because I'm unwilling, but simply because there have been two declined unblocks and reopening it at this stage would lead to more confusion IMO. If you're aware of a way that won't be disruptive, happy to. Let me know? Star Mississippi 00:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, that second unblock is about appealing to ARBCOM, so I think that would be more disruptive over what to me seems to be a technically that should be followed. (Part of why Lincoln2020 was upset had to do with how they thought an RfC was handled; while the early site-ban goes against this RfC. Not fully equivalent, but hopeful you get my intend here.)

As for how to go forward, the only options I can see are to re-open the full discussion, re-open everything except for the SBAN discussion and have it restart anew, or have ARBCOM review the SBAN and have them decide how to proceed. (Again, I think this is something ARBCOM doesn't have to deal with provided some action is taken to follow WP:CBAN.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-opened the discussion on procedural grounds. Noting that the outcome does appear to be fairly obvious, I have left Lincoln blocked, as reinstating the block 12 hours from now would be rather pointless (and possibly more disruptive than necessary). Primefac (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac @Super Goku V I commented there to keep it central, but I'm fine with this. My hesiation yesterday was purely of timing. We all want the same outcome of closure/path forward, whatever that looks like. I have a feeling this broader AP2 issue is headed back to ArbComm regardless of the particular players much as Israel/Palestine did late last year. Thanks both for moving forward while I was offline. Star Mississippi 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Star. It has been quite a while since we interacted, as I have become increasingly inactive on Wikipedia and edit only sporadically. It's good to see you are still active.

I recently came around to Sport in Albania (again) and tried beginning a clean-up there. It has always bugged me that there are a bunch of breathless match-by-match reports, sometimes with more or less worthy sourcing, but too little focus on sport in general in that country (as at most parallel articles).

Anyway, my clean-up was rather drastic, a series of 10 edits that pruned out unexplained tables, entirely empty sections, a second image with a duplicate caption, and the breathless sort of play-by-play communicating the (exciting!) exploits of Albanian athletes. I also expanded and corrected a number of references.

I am disappointed but not surprised that my edits caught the attention of (you'll never guess) an IP-editor from Germany. And it's not so much that they undid my changes (re-adding unsourced content and mystery tables), but that they're throwing around the charges of racism again (not at me, this time). The IPs are 2A00:20:D00B:B20:3B24:E54A:6A72:D714 and 2A00:20:D046:B1C0:14BB:C30:FE7:F21F, both from Germany, and the racism (from ...:F21F) is aimed at User:Adelbeighou, who reverted ...:D714's first flurry of changes. I can't say that Adelbeighou isn't editing provocatively or even with a racist slant, but I do hate to see the knee-jerk accusations be our German friend's first resort.

Also, I thought this guy (presumably Xoni98/Prishtinë25) was blocked. Do I need to assemble evidence and file a report at one of the messageboards?

Thanks for whatever advice/help you can offer. I hope you are well and editing happily. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JohnFromPinckney. All is well here and I hope the same is true for you. Always good to hear from you, although I wish that IP had moved on. I'm guessing the IP blocks have all expired. I think much of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xoni98 will be stale, but it's worth filing since the disruption is active. @Tamzin I'm not clerk shopping, but any further insight since you've looked at this mess before? Thanks either way! Star Mississippi 01:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! Just want to be sure you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EEng 11:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind expanding on your NC close please? All of the keep !votes are based on the assumption that inaccessible sources exist in Czech newspapers (despite no valid claim to a presumption of SIGCOV existing, and contra the requirement that a SIGCOV source be cited), but I did a comprehensive search in Czech libraries that covered multiple national and local papers and the results are trivial. This was not rebutted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with apologies, I thought I had provided a reason as it definitely needed one. I still don't see a consensus there, so if you feel it's incorrect I welcome DRV for further thought. Star Mississippi 19:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star, thanks for the explanation! Regarding With what has been found, we have a difference of opinion on whether it infers further coverage's existence. That was not resolved. I would have understood this interpretation prior to my searching, but I did a very extensive search in newspapers from 1918-25 without finding a single piece of coverage more than two sentences, so I thought the dearth of coverage had been pretty convincingly demonstrated (and also directly rebutted BeanieFan's !vote). Additionally, per NOLY and NSPORT2022 the subject explicitly cannot be presumed to have received SIGCOV based simply on having gone to the Olympics or running a marathon; and even if he did actually meet a sports criterion we can't infer that further coverage exists unless and until a real SIGCOV source is cited, which was never achieved. Two delete !voters ( @Geschichte and @Clariniie) weighed in after I did the source analysis and did not dispute my assessment, while only one keep weighed in and had the clearly incorrect position that trivial sources count towards BASIC when they do not. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had been meaning to ask at the discussion, but it seems I didn't get around to: were any of the newspapers in the "extensive search" from Hradec Králové? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all periodicals across several databases, I don't know how many of them cover Hradec Kralove. Perhaps you could ask @FromCzech. In Kramerius, the best I got across all permutations of "Olympijské" or "olympijský"+"Emil Kalous" or "Jan Kalous" were a couple passing mentions [1][2] [3][4] (and quotes from the unrelated coach in the late 1970s). Meanwhile, a search for "Olympijské" returned 14,382 records. "maratón"+"Kalous" returned one unrelated hit. Since some of the hits didn't provide full view of the page, I logged into my partner's Charles University account to access those publications, in particular those from Lidove noviny, (and search all other holdings between 1918 and 1930) via two of the databases at Digitalni Knihovna. Many of the hits there seemed to be for a catechist with the same name, e.g. here:

Věstník Ministerstva školství a národní osvěty =: Mitteilungen des Ministeriums für Schulwesen und Volkskulture. Praha: Ministerstvo školství a národní osvěty, 1918-1942. ISSN 1802-5048. Dostupné také z: https://www.digitalniknihovna.cz/mzk/uuid/uuid:c00d7f90-3aaf-11eb-a9f6-005056827e51

and here. Then I hand-typed anything that looked like it had more than just sports stats into Google translate.

I've since logged out of my partner's account, so if you have any specific papers you wanted to check it will have to be some time tomorrow. But all of this is way beyond what is expected of BEFORE... JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kramerius doesn't seem to work well for me – If you get the chance, could you also check something like "Kalous Příbram" (his club) or "Kalous Hradec" / "Kalous Králové" (another club)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOLY doesn't matter. Everything before NSPORTS2022 is just leftover stuff. Nothing new has been added. I'd rather just delete everything at NSPORT except the SIGCOV part if people are going to start citing it to delete stuff. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9 @BeanieFan11 @JoelleJay thanks all for your insight & input. Even with this, I still don't see a consensus there and don't feel comfortable closing it any other way. Normally I wouldn't relist one that had that much discussion, but since it only has been relisted once I'd be happy to if you'd rather avoid DRV Star Mississippi 04:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there's already enough questionable Olympian AFDs I have to deal with... BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete or redirect based on JoelleJay's source analysis, but for Emil Kalous AfD, other users seemed to disagree. Yeah, I know how difficult it can be to find non-English sources, especially for pre-internet topic like this. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I voted redirect but I think the "no consensus" close is an accurate reading of this discussion. That said, a more discussion could possibly move consensus one way or another. As always, Star, I appreciate your taking on some of the more challenging closes. Frank Anchor 15:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Star, I would appreciate a relist! JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to @JoelleJay. I know I'll fail at a mass ping in the template, so courtesy heads up to you @BeanieFan11 @Clariniie @Frank Anchor @WikiOriginal-9 since it's easier when you're in one chat that I'll do so momentarily with a pointer here. Star Mississippi 21:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"while only one keep weighed in and had the clearly incorrect position that trivial sources count towards BASIC when they do not" -- @JoelleJay, I have great respect for your contributions but you can't just say things like that without justification. WP:BASIC clearly says, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. You can dispute that it's met in this instance, but the consensus is clear that the coverage provided is in the ballpark that you could combine it and write a BASIC-compliant article. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep quoting only the first half of that sentence. trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was quoting the relevant part. The coverage we have of Kalous is clearly non-trivial by comparison of the only P&G example, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band". The quotes we have for combining are all more than that.

I think this would be good to discuss further in the AfD. --Habst (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, "trivial" would be anything less than the only P&G example of SIGCOV, the book-length history of IBM. Regardless, the consensus is that sportsperson articles must cite a source of SIGCOV, which overrides BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT does not override NBASIC; "SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule." BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was one !voter's statement in one AfD, not a consensus ruling. JoelleJay (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "one !voter" was the creator of that criterion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the proposal that gained consensus was somewhat different from the one he proposed, due to !voters' responses. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be good to discuss further in the AfD.

While I have absolutely no issue with you (collectively) discussing it here with one another, I think the AfD is the better venue especially if it's referred back to in further discussions of Olympians. I did leave a pointer here in my relist though so it will be found. Thanks all for your detailed input as always in these discussions. Star Mississippi 23:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks so much for the advise and the link, which was really very useful. I have removed all the links from the body as advised but put internal links back in. Should I have left them out as well? Sachikosky (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sachikosky. Nope you've done exactly as you should, and I removed some stray formatting that just happens. Thanks so much for following @Netherzone's and my suggestions. It's in better shape for review now. Star Mississippi 18:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice and taking time to communicate with me. I appreciate it greatly. Sachikosky (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Star Mississippi. I have completed a draft of this page and would appreciate feedback on whether it's heading in the right direction. I have carefully inserted citations from the linked documents to demonstrate that they do more than just mention the subject in passing—they actively discuss the works. Would you have the time and the care to take a look at this page? Sachikosky (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've done well @Sachikosky. I just added some sub sections to make the main one easier to read. Someone will review it when they can, there's currently a large backlog. You're welcome to continue editing it if you wish while awaiting review. Star Mississippi 15:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Star Mississippi Sachikosky (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh thanks for this bit of music ed @Gerda Arendt. Sesquicentennial was a fun tongue twister a few years ago and now we're on to Semiquincentennial, which I imagine will apply too to some musicians. Star Mississippi 21:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! What do Draft:Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre and Draft:Murder of Jesse Baird and Luke Davies and Draft:Morphy v Land Rover look like? If these are also almost done then they might be worth rescuing. Polygnotus (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've restored Draft:Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre as it's certainly viable. Murder of... is literally just a period. I think maybe @MaxnaCarta forgot about it or decided they didn't have time. I didn't bother restoring as I don't think we even need it for attribution. Thanks to you as well @Polygnotus for teaching me the refideas template. Super helpful especially as it alerts editors where a Talk page note doesn't. Always happy to restore drafts, so ping me any time I'm online. Star Mississippi 02:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I'll take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oops, we edit conflicted. Morphy is now restored as well @Polygnotus. Not sure about that one's viability, but no reason not to restore. Star Mississippi 02:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think Malmsbury is certainly worth rescuing. Not sure about Morphy yet; I'll have to do some Googling. Polygnotus (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I'm not watching any of these and think they're simple once ready, but if you run into any mainspace redirects or other barriers to straight restoration, just ping me. Star Mississippi 14:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Star,

Thanks for all of the AFD work you did today. Beeblebrox, who was handling quite a few AFD closures, has a schedule change and will not be available for AFD work until maybe sometime in the the future. For the past two weeks, I've been having a series of migraine headaches which have me avoiding more stressful editing work or areas of conflict. I'm just not in the condition to argue policy or any other matter. Much of the headaches are connected to the situation of the world right now which is out of my control but I can at least do more demanding work in the mornings because the caffeine really helps with the migraines.

Aside from all of that, I hope you have a pleasant weekend. You're a bright light, Star! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to hear you haven't been feeling well @Liz, but glad you have a time of day where you're able to feel better or at least navigate the symptoms. The world is certainly not helping an anything. I wondered what was up leaving some discussions at the end of my day when I logged on. Hope Beebs is OK, but happy to step in as you two, @OwenX and Explicit have certainly carried the load for a very long time. I occasionally check in as I know you get a lot of requests, and sometimes I can take easy ones off your plate but please ping me on your Talk or elsewhere if there's something you'd like me to handle. Star Mississippi 14:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you mean, Liz. My wife has a similar reaction to the news over the past two months, and I have to keep reminding her to focus on the part of her life that is within her control. These aren't normal times, but I hope you get back to normalcy, health and all. Don't worry about AFD; Star, Sandstein and Explicit handle most of it, leaving only a handful of the ugliest, most contentious ones for me to close on day 8 (with the inevitable ensuing fun at DRV...). I'm also trying to encourage some of the more experienced non-admins to handle more of the straightforward AFDs. Some of them are more than ready for the mop. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry your wife is struggling as well @OwenX. It's sad that news is somewhat literally unhealthy.

I totally agree re: those admins in waiting, @OwenX. I've seen a fair few whose well-reasoned closes are as good as any of ours. While I understand the logic, and there are certainly editors who have shown they shouldn't be closing discussions, I'm not in favor of this current trend that NAC=bad, especially when there are so many that close with ATDs that anyone can implement. We have more experience, maybe, but we're not magically better.

Sometimes especially with the run of relists I just did, I feel like a clerk which should be an option for those on the cusp of RfA/elections. Those with some weekday availability will certainly find a collection of ripe discussions. I wish every discussion had the passion that #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kalous above did as it would make closers' lives so much easier-I say even as I hate closing sports discussions because consensus is unsettled.

Hang in there both of you, and thanks for all you do. Star Mississippi 19:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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…
15		Ronne Hartfield (talk)	Add sources
8		Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 5000 metres (talk)	Add sources
34		Home with Kids (talk)	Add sources
19		Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein (talk)	Add sources
30		The Mood (talk)	Add sources
13		Rylan Gray (talk)	Add sources
122		Giant-Man (talk)	Cleanup
90		ASL Airlines Belgium (talk)	Cleanup
391		Lincoln Center (talk)	Cleanup
85		The River (American TV series) (talk)	Expand
42		Şymkent International Airport (talk)	Expand
1,191		Sanctuary city (talk)	Expand
1,207		Immigration to the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
300		Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
109		Immigration detention in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
29		Data mining in agriculture (talk)	Merge
116		Drayton Manor Resort (talk)	Merge
6		New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (talk)	Merge
532		Horsemen of Apocalypse (talk)	Wikify
26		Paul Burmeister (talk)	Wikify
3		Slydris (talk)	Wikify
27		Class Struggles and the Revolutionary Party (talk)	Orphan
85		Cr7 Horaa (talk)	Orphan
23		Gate.io Group (talk)	Orphan
8		Domingos Castro (talk)	Stub
5		Berkeley school of political theory (talk)	Stub
12		Prince Alexander of Liechtenstein (1929–2012) (talk)	Stub
10		Tiller Systems (software) (talk)	Stub
62		Ecstacy (song) (talk)	Stub
82		Suicidal-Idol (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) 23:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]