Star Mississippi

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

Quick question about close?

I have a question about the close here: why is it ‘no consensus’ instead of keep? There is one comment (providing sources, but not a clear keep) and 2 keep !votes.

I don’t think it really matters, but I was curious. :) FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! When you have a keep per, that wasn't actually a keep it's a weak keep which really leaves you with 1/1. To me that's N/C, but whether it's a week keep close or a N/C probably doesn't matter much. Star Mississippi 13:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. So I screwed up my own vote, good to know for next time, thanks. :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Not screwed up, but not as clear to a closer as it could have been. Why did you interpret the comment as a keep, rather than just keep per... More context is always helpful. Star Mississippi 14:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it’s my comment. ;)

I was going for “meets n per the sources provided by …”, but I just had my partner read over that and she agreed with how you interpreted it, so it’s my error. FortunateSons (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries, definitely more art than science at times. Thanks for dropping a note and have a good day! Star Mississippi 13:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, have a good day as well! FortunateSons (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Urgent help required

Someone is repeatedly undoing my edits on the article Maratha Confederacy without any reason. I already had a long discussion on the article's talk page and quoted information from WP:RS sources but the person who is reverting my edits doesn't give any explanation on the talk or while reverting. He also has involved another user who is repeatedly harassing me on my talk page and giving no excuse on why he is reverting my edits (he has also been blocked once from what i saw on his talk page). I have provided WP:RS sources on article's talk page still the other user is commenting on my talk page "give reliable sources" and now has used a Red flag while reverting my edit besides demanding indefinite time period protection for Maratha confederacy article.

Plz help me. I would be grateful for you help Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mohammad Umar Ali ((talk page watcher) this may be something to take to WP:DRN, a great place for seeing resolution of intractable disputes. If your need is as urgent as you say that may be an excellent place to start. The volunteers there help reach a guided consensus. However, nothing is ever urgent on Wikipedia, so please take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard for ten minutes or so, and then proceed calmly and unemotionally. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mohammad Umar Ali (talk page watcher) Whatever the next step you take, please take it in a true spirit of one needing impartial help. Whether you are 100% correct or 100% incorrect or somewhere in between, collegial Wikipedians do not take sides, they simply review the evidence. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thnx for the help Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Timtrent for jumping in here while I was offline. This is definitely best suited for DRN, @Mohammad Umar Ali as it appears to be a very complex issue and my on wiki time remains limited. Let me know if I can help in any other way. Star Mississippi 13:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This hare was set running simultaneously at another editor's talk page. They issued advice that was 'stronger' but not dissimilar. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of IMAX venues

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of IMAX venues. Note, this refers specifically to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_IMAX_venues_(4th_nomination). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jonovitch (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have responded there to keep it central Star Mississippi 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

May thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for closing the deletion discussion for Magdalena Hinterdobler. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Appreciated the well reasoned input to make a close fairly easy. Star Mississippi 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Rejected draft recreation

Hi! My apologies if this is the wrong place to bring it - Draft:Collegiate Model United Nations Society, India was recently rejected, and the editor responsible promptly created an identical draft with a slightly different name, Draft:Collegiate Model United Nations Society (which has been declined twice so far). There seems to be no reason to waste further AFC time and effort with a draft that isn't being improved and presumably cannot be improved. Is there somewhere I should take this for attention, or is bringing it to you a suitable response? Thanks and hope you're having a good day! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this @StartGrammarTime. @Justlettersandnumbers took care of the duplication before I could get to it (thank you!) but I have blocked the editor who is clearly here only to promote that model UN chapter. They're welcome to file an unblock if they intend to edit elsewhere. Star Mississippi 13:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time and attention! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion

editor now INDEFfed, issue moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems you vote more for deletion than the average editor and you dont even try to resolve things first. Its much like an anarchist editor's move that you're not truly what's doing in the best interest of the subject or of the purpose of Wikipedia and you're not quite following its policies to a t you're copying pasting some of the verbage in the policies but you're severely misinterpreting them and factual black and white categorical evidence there's no way that her audiobook narrator career can be disputed . Mooresklm2016 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Seems you vote more for deletion than the average editor and you dont even try to resolve things first. Its much like an anarchist editor's move that you're not truly what's doing in the best interest of the subject or of the purpose of Wikipedia and you're not quite following its policies to a t you're copying pasting some of the verbage in the policies but you're severely misinterpreting them and factual black and white categorical evidence there's no way that her audiobook narrator career can be disputed . Mooresklm2016 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2024 ( For any TPS, the discussion is at User_talk:Mooresklm2016#May_2024. I see no need to split it. Star Mississippi 16:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Collins

Was surprised this one wasn't relisted, just curious why you went straight for the no consensus? Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I was on the fence given the already high (for current times) participation and the split assessment which, to me, read as one unlikely to be resolved.

Happy to relist if you'd like. Note I'll be offline until the evening so apologies in advance for the delay in doing so. Star Mississippi 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a problem, I just assumed that with an additional week, more consensus might be able to form as it was a tricky one. Thanks for the response! SportingFlyer T·C 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"Sangerpedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sangerpedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31 § Sangerpedia until a consensus is reached. (Notification being sent to all who participated in the DRV.) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Nichols DRV

I agree that restoring it to draft was in order. This was another DRV request that didn't need to go through DRV, because the requester can create a new article in draft space or article space, subject to review if a draft, and subject to a new AFD in article space. I wonder whether DRV Purpose 3 should be clarified so that requesters will not think that they are required to go through DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon.

Thanks for the pointer to the set of guidelines. It was 3 I was indirectly citing but couldn't find the list handy. The closer acted within a set of facts we only now know not to be true, same as if new sourcing had come out. Nice to know that wasn't a full IAR. I think it could be clarified, or like your point on WT:DRV, re-examined to not be scope creep but to make it less of a bureaucracy which I think we're all seeing more than enough of lately. I'm about to log off but happy to discuss further. Star Mississippi 02:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:James G. Hollandsworth

I had this deleted entry on a professor and author who wrote about the history of Louisiana and Mississippi restored. He also wrote about psychology. Is he notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FloridaArmy

From my POV based on citation volume, I think he's notable as an academic. Let me see what I can add. Thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 15:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good for mainspace, but there are some citation formatting errors I'm not sure about. Do you know? If not I'll mainspace and a bot will sort it out. Star Mississippi 15:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help. I'm no help on citations, sorry. Thabks again. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

and @Ira Leviton took care of it (thank you!) it seems the script does numbers which the text then doesn't. And thanks for getting it started, @FloridaArmy Star Mississippi 13:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

About your revision deletion on David Hertzberg

Hey Star Mississippi! I happened to revisit this article and noticed you handled the copyright violation revdel request that I left. However, you only hid a single revision while leaving subsequent revisions visible. I believe all of these revisions until this one still contain copyrighted text and need to be hidden. Let me know what you think. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69 and apologies for this. I'm not sure if I misread the request and/or the script glitched as it was a while ago. I've completed the request now, but please don't hesitate to ping me if something further is needed here or on another article. Star Mississippi 14:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No apologies needed, and thanks for taking care of it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ESPNU personalities

I was a bit surprised to see you close this as a merge, especially considering the 'delete' vote which found a lack of evidence to support it as such. I thought a relist was appropriate to gain additional consensus. Let'srun (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but more eyes are always helpful so I have relisted. FWIW, I read that delete as no reason to support a standalone, not that the content must be deleted. Thanks for raising @Let'srun Star Mississippi 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I get how you read things that way. Thank you for relisting. Let'srun (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citybuzz

Can you please reconsider your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citybuzz? Unfortunately once again MILL is being used to argue against bus routes being included in Wikipedia, when MILL is an essay. EVENT was also misapplied here and so I believe the only delete vote presented after I added sources to be a poor argument. The nominator and previous delete voter didn't acknowledge the addition of sources. I don't think the argument is strong enough for a delete close - no consensus feels more appropriate due to the lack of participation and poor delete arguments put forward. Garuda3 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Garuda3. I think your interpretation is unfortunately in the minority here. I've reread the input and still see no other way to close this. You're of course welcome to go to DRV, but my suggestion is to work on it in draft space and see if you can find truly independent & secondary sources. Not just its existence, but information about it. Let me know if you'd like the draft? About to be offline for a couple of hours so pardon any delay. Star Mississippi 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Star Mississippi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Netherzone (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

ping pong, email en route back to the @Netherzone Star Mississippi 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks! Netherzone (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Anatolia for deletion?

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatolia Genetics as soft delete, but the article was in the meanwhile moved to Genetics of anatolia, which means you only deleted the redirect rather than the article itself. Probably just an accident, wanted to tell you! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

blasted scripts. It used to notify when that was the case, but it either didn't or I missed it. Thanks so much for tagging & flagging, it's fixed now. Star Mississippi 16:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks to you! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Star Mississippi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
16		Hum Sitaray (talk)	Add sources
5		2017 in Pakistani television (talk)	Add sources
52		Ahmed Jahanzeb (talk)	Add sources
41		Angeline Malik (talk)	Add sources
38		Sharda (singer) (talk)	Add sources
8		Lyle Saxon (talk)	Add sources
28		University of Wales, Newport (talk)	Cleanup
326		University of Aberdeen (talk)	Cleanup
24		Cardiff High School (talk)	Cleanup
302		2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (talk)	Expand
133		University of South Wales (talk)	Expand
2,894		Coeliac disease (talk)	Expand
176		Constraint programming (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
104		Ext2 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
326		Diamond Head (British band) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,493		Bariatric surgery (talk)	Merge
139		Bariatrics (talk)	Merge
55		Stomach reduction surgery (talk)	Merge
270		Savera Nadeem (talk)	Wikify
510		Hollywood Hills (talk)	Wikify
120		Rudy Giuliani during the September 11 attacks (talk)	Wikify
5		Neelim Mahanta (talk)	Orphan
2		Te Wharetoroa Tiniraupeka (talk)	Orphan
1		Yeshiva of the Students of Paris (talk)	Orphan
22		Morogo (talk)	Stub
19		Fayyaz Hashmi (talk)	Stub
4		41st Massachusetts Infantry Regiment (talk)	Stub
2		Sanduo, Jiangsu (talk)	Stub
3		Franklin Lafayette Riley Jr. (talk)	Stub
2		Old Fort Commercial Historic District (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) 11:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD analysis

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

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

Serenity Cox Restoration

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

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

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

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

Help for Sanket Goel

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

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

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

Hey, Star,

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

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

Subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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