User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Star Mississippi! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year!! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! For your winter holiday of choice, I give you Birthday Candles from your amazing list. And now to create Benesch, who absolutely needs an article. Healthy and safe holidays to you as well. Star Mississippi 15:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Good choice (!!!), though there's not really much of a selection. Nice anyway. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Silva (novelist)

Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

you're welcome. It seemed a simple solution that would solve to your (totally valid) concern as well as the other editor's desire to have it included. Not entirely sure what the guidelines are on adding as yet unreleased books to be honest, so I hadn't done it myself. Belated thanks on this cleanup as well. Have a good evening! Star Mississippi 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reason Silva was on my watchlist was because I've read all of the Gabriel Allon series. Actually, I was pleased to hear Silva had another book in the pipeline for next year. He generally puts out one a year, so I wasn't surprised. The other editor annoyed me, though. Wouldn't even discuss it with me. Anyway, I bowed out as I didn't want to edit-war over it, and as edits go, it was pretty small potatoes.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Same! One of my favorite annual reads and I typically end up creating the new book titles each summer when I'm finished reading and therefore not worried about spoilers as I research the stub. Surprised I missed two. Gabriel Allon was the first (only?) fictional character I wrote an article on because it's such an amazing character. Who knew there would eventually be 20+ books? Don't look too hard at that article right now, it needs some clean up which I'll put on my to do. So weird how they coudln't just answer to your unsourced question with a link since we all heard it somewhere. Star Mississippi 02:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't get into the Allon reading until very late in the game, so I've been pigging out with one book after the other. My guess is it's better to read them annually. Although I enjoy them, they are somewhat formulaic, and, really, how many times can Gabriel almost die? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously. Although after a comment Allon made about how much of Gabriel is in him and he is in Allon, I finally believe he won't kill him off despite regularly trying to maim him. I had wandered away for a few years due to grad school/life and binged Defector/Moscow Rules. I don't think I could have made it through that year waiting on the cliffhanger. I went through the binge you mention with Michael Connelly's books a few years ago and it was a relief to be finished and only have the annual ish releases. Star Mississippi 03:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we must be twins separated at birth. I'm a big Bosch fan, although I thought the TV series was significantly inferior and about as loosely based on the books as possible despite Connelly's apparent approval - no doubt they paid him well. (I think you meant "comment Silva made" above.)--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

hah! Yes, good mystery/crime fiction readers tend to be. So many good books, so little time. I think the same Amazon powers that be are behind the upcoming Reacher and I'm skipping it for the same reason, although Titus Welliver was a good Bosch. I cracked up when Bosch apppeared in Alafair Burke's books the first time, now I look for him. Fun easter eggs. LOL, yes indeed although fitting brain typo given my comment. Star Mississippi 18:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 want a laugh? Look at SuggestBot above. I just had a chance to look at what it served up while I was offline for the holidays. I think we could call this chapter SilvaBot. LOL. Star Mississippi 14:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The bot has obviously been hacked by the Office.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Star Mississippi, I saw you closed this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Open Women's Singles champions in badminton. In my thinking, it would be better if the Afd is relisted to generate more comments, because creator is yet to show any concerns for the list they made, how it can be kept by solving the issues raised. It should be noted that list is incomplete for almost an year. Thankyou. zoglophie 05:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Zoglophie and thanks for your note. I don't think a relist would add more comments that lean toward delete so at best we'd end up with a no consensus, which still keeps the content. While I'm not against relisting it, what I'd recommend is you waiting to see if the improvements happen and if not, re-nominate it in six months or so. Thoughts? Happy to discuss further. Star Mississippi 14:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A major thanks for the notification

If you hadn’t pinged me I wouldn’t have even known such an imperative discussion which required my input was ongoing, thank you once more for the notification. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome @Celestina007. I'm not familiar with the situation at all and while I recognize your name from around the project, I don't believe I know either of you. True neutral is sometimes the easiest place to be when looking to make sure all relevant parties are notified. Have a wonderful evening, or whatever it is where you are. Star Mississippi 22:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Good grief

I was offline for a few hours and when I came back, there were all these notifications. What a strange flurry of activity. Or a flurry of strange activity. Thanks for stepping in, as always.

As part of this flurry, somebody left their e-mail address on my Talk. I'm about to delete the entire section as I have zero interest in whatever they're proposing, but do I need to have it revdel'ed or something? Or just delete and forget? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Any time. At least that sock made it crystal clear who he was and didn't try the fake apology like his friend a few threads up. You caught one over night, so thanks for that.

I just took care of the email with rev-del. Someone else may think it warrants oversight, but I tend to think posting about that to AN* defeats the purpose of keeping private info private, and I'm not sure I know any OSers to ask. Have a good evening. Star Mississippi 02:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding closure notice: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interventionism (medicine)

I noticed on your closure notice for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interventionism (medicine) you stated Should it be eventually merged, that's an editorial discussion that doesn't require a further extension of this nearly month-long AfD. I was the one who !voted Merge to Unnecessary health care. How should I proceed if I think that a merger is still worth pursuing? Thanks. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note @Rsjaffe. I think you could proceed one of two ways. There's the formal merger to/from tagging as described in Wikipedia:Merging#Step_1:_Create_a_discussion (much easier if you have Twinkle), or you could just open a discussion on Talk:Interventionism (medicine) talking about your concerns about it being a neologism and why the target would make more sense if you don't want to do the former merger proposal. I think SuggestBot picks up on merger proposals, so the former might get more input. I'm not sure if the poorly-attended AfD was a sign of the holidays, lack of knowledge of the topic or both, but I think we're at a better time for a broader merger discussion. Would also recommend pinging the AfD participants as that wouldn't be canvassing and they theoretically have some thoughts about the topic. Does that help? Star Mississippi 00:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thanks for your advice. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 01:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 01:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Xoni98 ip

You might want to look at this IP, which engages in similar editing behavior as Xoni98. [1] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Paperwork filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xoni98#18_January_2022 cc: @JohnFromPinckney. Star Mississippi 14:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Quick question: what's the deal with ip's and SPI? I thought we aren't supposed to connect ip addresses to accounts? Sorry if that sounds like a dumb question. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! No worries, it's always confusing. They're not technically. So they can't confirm that 185 (and all the others at the SPI) are Xoni, but because Xoni makes the same edits whether logged in with a sock or one of the IPs, they're not telling us anything we don't know. This is especially true with the one weightlifter they keep trying to add. It's clear that this isn't a new editor from Germany who has an interest in an Albanian weight lifter. So while they can't confirm it, you watch this sock farm long enough and you see their tells. I forget how they first landed on @JohnFromPinckney's and my user talk, but they never tried to hide who they were. In fact, if you scroll up to User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Admitting_an_Misstake_that_i_did., you'll see that the IP at the time admitted who they were and promised for about six seconds that they'd stop socking. Does that help? Star Mississippi 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely makes more sense now. Thanks for taking the time to go over that with me. Very kind of you. I've been editing since forever but it was always a source of confusion. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, there's a lot I still only know enough about to ask someone else as well. I'm also a long-ish term editor and it's not possible for any of us to know all the pieces. Should have said sooner, thank you for flagging this. Sports in the Balkans are not a personal interest so I don't have many of these on my watchlist. So thanks again Star Mississippi 18:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The GroundTruthProject

It's because the draft was declined then they created it in mainspace. Someone else had moved it back, but couldn't move it to the original name, so they added a 2 to the end. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight. I've worked with that editor on some other projects and knew them to be editing in good faith which was why it surprised me. Does it need a history merge do you think? Star Mississippi 14:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP discussion

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the heads up on and pointer to the decision. I'll go join it. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 20:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of David Leisner

Greetings. Regarding this edit: Which part of this text is "unambiguous copyright infringement" worthy of deletion without so much as a call for consensus?

David Leisner is a classical guitarist, composer, and teacher at the Manhattan School of Music. He previously also taught at the New England Conservatory.

Prior to being disabled by focal dystonia, Leisner received international recognition and placed in competitions in Toronto and at the Geneva International Guitar Competition.

He is also the author of Playing With Ease.

Regards. Kire1975 (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Kire1975, thanks for your note. The existing version isn't the issue, but rather the deleted ones. From this first edit, the article said (among other sentences) "on concert series in such notable venues as Boston's Jordan Hall and Gardner Museum, the Cleveland Museum of Art, Spivey Hall in Atlanta, Royce Hall in Los Angeles, the Folly Theater in Kansas City, the St. Francis Auditorium in Santa Fe, and the Augustine Guitar Series in New York City."

The source said "on concert series in such notable venues as Boston’s Jordan Hall and Gardner Museum, the Cleveland Museum of Art, Spivey Hall in Atlanta, Royce Hall in Los Angeles, the Folly Theater in Kansas City, St. Francis Auditorium in Santa Fe, and New York’s Weill Recital Hall at Carnegie Hall, 92nd St. Y and Symphony Space." I believe there may have been an attempt to paraphase, but it was still clearly within speedy territory as copyright violations are not subject to consensus. He is a notable musician, which is why I created a stub to replace the inappropriate text. Does that help? Thanks. Star Mississippi 20:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I still can't see that edit because it was deleted, I guess. On one angle, it looks like the whole page was deleted. Then, the page was still there. And for some reason, the entire edit history to the page is deleted as well. Anyway, thanks for the lesson. Kire1975 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome (and correct). When I first came across the article my take on Leisner was "This needs clean up, but he's clearly notable". However as I began to research secondary sourcing, such as the one I linked above I realized the copyright violations. Since those can't remain in the history either and because the violation was present from the first edit, the only solution was to delete the article. Some admins do that, others -including me if it's a subject area where I'm comfortable working - will replace it with a stub that would pass AfD but still needs improvement. He's notable as a musician and (I believe) academic, although I'd defer to editors such as @DGG on that since I'm not sure if the Conservatory and MSM are calculated in the same way. Guitar Department Chair isn't named, so I'm not sure. In either case, you're welcome to edit the article again now, there is no infringing content and it wasn't you who added it anyway. Happy to help in any other way. Star Mississippi 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as Star says, for academics in the performing arts, they can be notable either under WP:PROF or as performers; similarly with the visual arts. Teaching music performance even in the best specialized school usually doesn't meet WP:PROF, just as teaching in any field (as distinguished from research) is very hard but not impossible to use for notability under PROF. A person can be notable as a mentor or coach in any field, but that always needs very strong 3rd party sources--usually it tends to sound like name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for that insight. Given what DGG said-as there's no one who knows academic requirements more-@Kire1975I think you're best served with the music sources. The dystonia ones seemed a little thin on the ground, and Medical RS are a complicated path to navigate. Let me know how I can help at all. Star Mississippi 21:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have dystonia and started following him because he received a significant award from the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation, I think. Your deletion of the history on that article seems to have disappeared the source that I used. Maybe I got the organization wrong, but a cursory google search doesn't turn up the award anymore. I didn't even know he was an academic. Could you maybe put something on the talk page explaining what you did and why you didn't feel you needed to ask for a consensus first? I appreciate it. Kire1975 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The only edit you made to that article was to ask what a tonebase guitar was, so perhaps you're thinking of another dystonia-related article? I'm happy to add a pointer to this conversation, but I think you're still misunderstanding speedy deletion, specifically G12. There is no consensus element to copyright-violating text. Star Mississippi 03:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely confused. That's why I'm appreciate you answering my questions for clarity. Awhile back, I was posting that award on a number of people's pages and it was at this time that I somehow encountered David Leisner's page. I think you just explained why my search for his name and that award on google doesn't turn up the results I expected. What with the entire history of the page being deleted, I would now like to know how you found my question about tonebase guitar? I thought it would be by searching my user contributions, but that's not it. Oh well, I do appreciate your responsiveness. You've helped clear up a lot of confusion already. Cheers. Kire1975 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a little confusing. As an administrator I can see deleted revisions/contributions so when you mentioned you thought you'd added a source I looked to see if I could get you the URL since it sounds like that would add to Leisner's notability. At a glance, I don't see anything else dystonia related in your deleted contributions, but I may have missed it. Will look more post-coffee. Happy to help at any time! Star Mississippi 14:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Kaushal Srivastava

Hi there! I would really appreciate it if you could draftify the Kaushal Srivastava article (which has been deleted) so that I can compile some more sources. Thank you!!

23:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Rohagr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohagr (talk • contribs)

Hi @Rohagr:. You can access and edit the draft at Draft:Kaushal Srivastava. Let me know if I can help in any other way. So you know for the future, when you add a section to an editor's talk page you should put it at the bottom so it can be more easily seen/accessed. I have moved it on your behalf here. Have a great evening Star Mississippi 01:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of HelpingMinds

Looks the Helpingminds article is deleted even before I get a chance to reply. Wikipedia is a major platform, and there are huge no of deserving students in India who could discover NGO such as Helping Minds through wikipedia. The main objective of having the article is to serve and help deserving students. Please suggest if the article can be restored. Star Mississippi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arakna (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Arakna. Unfortunately you misunderstand the goals of Wikipedia, which is not for promotion. However since this is a contested PROD, I will restore it and list it at AfD for the community to decide. You can join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helpingminds, which will be open for a minimum of seven days. Let me know if you need more info. Star Mississippi 14:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Arakna, just letting you know the discussion closed with a consensus to delete the article again. Star Mississippi 14:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

RE: Micah McLaurin

AFD pages (and similar pages) are transcluded into other pages (in this case "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 15"). As the pp-templates have their own category, the protected AFD page will be categorized under Category:Wikipedia semi-protected project pages. However, the pages where the page is transcluded into (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 15) will receive the following category: Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates because the page is transcluding the template while it is unprotected. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeremiah Moss

Hi, did you find the info you had on Jeremiah Moss? I’m going to improve the article a bit and nominate it for DYK, it is a tad late but it should be fine. Any additional information would be wonderful! Thriley (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Let me try and pull what I had ASAP. Remind me where that conversation was, please, WPNYC? Star Mississippi 14:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

never mind, found it and integrated what I had in the article. You had two of the sources I was thinking of so I think we're all set. Star Mississippi 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Article - BerriBlue

Hi there, Can I please have a copy to work on in draft space? Hoping to cite better this time, and continue my project.

note: I originally wrote more, but saw the questions were better asked in the Teahouse.

Wil57 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Here you go Draft:BerriBlue. Apologies for the delay, we may be in different time zones. Star Mississippi 14:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

AFD needs closing

This AFD Death of Miya Marcano has now been open for 8 days now. I think it is time to close it since it has a clear consensus. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will be along to close it when they feel the time is right. It is not time sensitive for discussions to be closed exactly seven days after they are opened. Star Mississippi 18:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That userbox that I created about vindication has nothing to do with by upcoming three month ban if you were thinking that. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was indeed. Thanks for clarifying Star Mississippi 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If I am really in my last warning, I may want to retire in the next few months and only go on Wikipedia to message others. It would be better to retire than end up a sockpuppeter. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Do not sockpuppet (again). Just follow any advice you're given and follow it thoroughly. This oops, my bad, again is getting old. Star Mississippi 03:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that I have been banned from AFDs for three months, please let me know what day does my ban expire? Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You already asked @Sandstein who is the one that closed the discussion and implemented the consensus. Please wait for him to respond. Star Mississippi 16:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jerome Chazen

On 9 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jerome Chazen, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh this is a fun surprise, thanks @Stephen! I think I had a DYK back when I was first active, but don't recall participating in ITN. I wasn't sure we'd get past the long stub issues. Special thanks too to @Muboshgu for the pointers on additional sourcing. Star Mississippi 23:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Jacobariel91

I'm not sure how it happened, but your decline was to a (non-existent) "empty" unblock request and left the real (and I believe only) unblock request untouched. Could you fix it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed, I think. I hate templates. Star Mississippi 20:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, take another look, it's a mess. I hate templates, too. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. Looks like @Jpgordon fixed it before I saw this. Filing this under another reason to avoid unblock requests. Thanks for fixing/flagging, both. Star Mississippi 21:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't really fix it, although it looked a lot less messy. You had already declined the unblock request. JP repeated it, so to speak, and then declined it with his reason. I believe I have everything straightened out yesterday, although JP's "decline" has now become a comment - hope he doesn't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

well that ended up being a collective/colossal waste of time. Grateful the trash has been taking out. Thanks again for flagging. Star Mississippi 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart

Please strike the AfD votes of this user: they are disruptive

Hello Star Mississippi,

I have uncovered copypasted spammed AfD rationales posted by User:Davidgoodheart, and I filed this complaint on his talk page. Could you evaluate the claim and, if appropriate, strike the current votes (Afdstats) that are copypasted rationales? Thank you in advance, Pilaz (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pilaz. Unfortunately I do not have time to thoroughly investigate this at the moment as I'm about to go offline, although I've noticed those poor form !votes myself. Suggest posting to WP:AN if there's no active administrator around at the moment. Star Mississippi 18:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy offlining! Pilaz (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I have some concerns about that editor given their tenure, so thanks for flagging. Will try to look into it this evening or as soon as I can. Please ping me if you do file an AN/I report as I'd like to chime in if my review backs up my concerns. Star Mississippi 23:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am really sorry for all this

I just wanted you to know I am very sorry for all the problems I have caused lately. I will do my VERY BEST to follow all rules now, I had no idea that I was in my final warning. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason that I edited the ANI link is so that I could see what it was, and I didn't mean to break a rule by doing that. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You're not necessarily in your final warning, that was just my opinion. I think your plan is a good one though as no one wants to get into a pickle. Star Mississippi 02:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on it was said that I hadn't done anything wrong and that "no more about this editor", and yet people want be to be banned for AfD for three months? I thought this was resolved. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

there was no indication this was resolved. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. Star Mississippi 16:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I could use this three month ban to do research to learn more about guidelines, so there is a good side to this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. Have a good day. Star Mississippi 17:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There are some things that I will need to ask you, if that is OK with you. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have time available to be "on call" for questions, but I recommend the Help Desk and Tea House for any questions that you have when the ANI thread answers. In the mean time you can ask any questions in the thread. Star Mississippi 17:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to let one or two of my fellow editors know that there are some articles up for deletion and suggest that they vote, although I will not ask them how to vote. That wouldn't be canvassing would it? Even though I can't current vote I think I can still let other people know about AFDs if that is allowed. I need to ask you since I am making sure that I am following the rules. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Davidgoodheart, the wisest approach is to stay away from the deletion processes entirely. Go edit stuff. Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: OK then, I will do that, thanks for the advice. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Schazjmd for handling this in my absence. @Davidgoodheart I concur wholly with my colleague here. While there was nuance in @Sandstein's close, I'm going to be blunt. If you toe the edges of your topic ban, you're going to end up sanctioned longer. There are many backlogs across the project. Please contribute to one or more, you may find a new area of interest. I often do. Have a good evening, both. Star Mississippi 01:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel you have closed many AfDs in error

I feel you have closed many AfDs in error. Ignoring the clear majority in favor of deleting these articles. There is no good reason to overwhelm Wikipedia with redirects, especially when a majority of the participants favor deleting them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There really is no such thing as overwhelming Wikipedia with redirects, and it's a valid ATD especially when they are reasonable search terms. Many of these could probably have been resolved prior to going to AfD. If you look above, always happy to discuss my closures but you've not given an example. In a few I've looked back at, there really aren't more than one or two explicitly against a redirect, which is different than !voting delete. I'm aware of the broader issue with those creations, but I doubt they'll all be deleted, despite the fact that they also shouldn't be standalones. Happy for you to take them to DRV if you feel strongly. I will be offline much of today, but will check in when I can. Star Mississippi 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really get your AfD close

This one, to be precise. The only consideration made here was about the sources, but a lot of them are in snippet mode or offline. I was able, for instance, to verify the book from 1988 and the biographical dictionary that it contains pertinent info on Biss, it was simply already mentioned in the article, so we already have more than two sources. Besides, at the very least I don't see any consensus for any operation whatsoever (deletion, merge, redirect...) - the !vote count doesn't agree, I don't see the strength of the argument for merge to be strong, and anyway there were too few participants to decide. I would ask you to reconsider the closure. At least based on the arguments presented there, I couldn't possibly have reached to the conclusion you did. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and always happy to discuss. Where I landed on this was as follows (in order of !votes for convenience, not merit or any other factor and discounting the banned editor) and I would thank you and @GizzyCatBella for your thorough discussion and not just listing of sources. You and @Piotrus agreed that there was sourcing, but disagreed on whether the depth of sourcing was significant, somewhat challenged by poor digitization. GCB flagged several that were about Biss, but also in conjunction with the massacre. Your comment at 4:32, 25 January 2022 talked about the issues surrounding the content of the massacre's article, but no one really got to a point of establishing he was notable independent of the massacre. Given sourcing and discussion, it appeared clear to me that he is notable in the context of the massacre, and therefore the merger was a viable and valid ATD.

Would you like me to relist it? I'm willing to do so, but I really think the best course of action for all interested editors is to work on Biss information within the massacre article and then spin it out if access to sourcing provides more independent information which merits a standalone article. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 16:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with the second paragraph - that's our purpose here after all :). As for relisting - I'd prefer it if you did it, but I won't get upset if you don't. I mean, I think there's no denial that the article is in poor condition, but it doesn't merit deletion at least for the reasons provided by the OP. Even though I prefer this option much less, I may reluctantly accept a merge, but only as a stopgap measure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I may have broken the ping, but you'll see I relisted it. I don't think we have run into one another much but I'm always willing to get more input, especially when it's a well-reasoned request, which yours certainly was. Have a wonderful day. Star Mississippi 20:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, greatly appreciated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting is a good compromise. Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both. I feel like there's (generally) some relist fatigue going on, even putting aside the language/digitization issues that are a challenge in this discussion. I closed a discussion last night that had two relists with zero additional input. It's a problem we'll have to face in coming months. Hopefully in this particular case we get additional input. Star Mississippi 14:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

BeWelcome

Thank you for being an active administrator on Wikipedia, voluntarily contributing to greater knowledge for the greater good!

The BeWelcome community is also a volunteer organisation of over 350,000 members.

There was an active discussion about deleting the page due to it not being sufficiently "notable". The same has happened to Trustroots, a partnering platform, yet not member-paid services such as Servas, Warmshowers, and CouchSurfing.

In the discussion within the BeWelcome forums

the following link was proposed to consolidate the media coverage about BeWelcome.

https://www.bewelcome.org/wiki/Media_Coverage

Please may I request for undeletion of the BeWelcome page, at least to continue the Talk discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterburk (talk • contribs) 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Peterburk. Nice to meet you It looks like BeWelcome has been merged into Homestay. Pinging @Geysirhead and @Subaculture who appear to be working on that. I think the best place to continue the discussion would be on Talk:Homestay as to when BeWelcome might reach the level of coverage required. I cannot access your link as I am not a BeWelcome member, but the issue isn't that coverage doesn't exist, but that it's not at the level/depth required. Let me know if that helps. Star Mississippi 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Star_Mississippi, I suppose the sudden rush for deletion of Bewelcome after 14 years of quite existence arose from escalation against me. Here is the story. After a dispute about a dog-related category for Jezebel, Unbh started to stalk/harass me by making unreasonable deletions on Warmshowers, the first page made by me. I looked into their contributions and talk page. I was not the only one "victim" of unreasonable deletions by Unbh. Unfortunetely, I could not stay calm. After EW, we both were blocked for 3 days. This attracted attention of deletion focused editors like AlexEng (almost only red on pages and green on talk pages). I pointed out their lack at showing deep, professional and constructive research and investigation of sources. After this, AlexEng falsely accused me of "insulting" Unbh, which is a criminal offense in some countries. Later, HighKing joined the party by copy-pasting boilerplate about WP:CORPDEPTH. Actually, unlike others, HighKing showed their high ability at dealing with sources. But, I fear HighKing misunderstands WP:CORPDEPTH, by writing that a peer-reviewed paper or a Gardian article by independent authors become dependent, once they use data from the subject or interview members of the subject. Expecially, private messaging data can only originate from the subject. There is no way for independent authors to report on subject without dealing with the subject in any way. HighKing also called Bewelcome a "company" and its members "customers". This is like calling Wikipedia a "company" and its editors "customers". Bewelcome and Wikipedia are both volunteer powered non-profit organizations. Sorry if somebody feels insulted.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Unfortunately this larger dispute is not something I'm available to handle, nor do I think DRV is the right venue for something so complex. If you feel it was a problematic nomination or conduct, I recommend WP:DRN before going to one of the admin noticeboards. Hope you're able to get some insight on how to resolve this. Star Mississippi 15:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to be respectful of Star Mississippi's talk page, so I'll not use this as a forum to re-litigate the issues with the two hospitality exchange platforms or their sourcing and notability. Since I was pinged by Geysirhead in connection with some allegations, I'll respond only to those. Geysirhead, on three separate occasions you assailed a user's competence, citing WP:CIR in response to an argument made in a deletion discussion. One of those three occasions was directed at me, on my talk page, after I had asked you to remain civil at AfD and comment on content, not contributors. Your follow up response then bizarrely implied that I do not possess enough mastery of the English language to understand the discussion. However, since you then struck your insinuations about editors' competence, I chose not to respond and entangle myself in this any further. It's disheartening to see this brought up again on somebody else's talk page; I'll again urge you to drop the stick and edit constructively. Somebody, at some point, may take even more offense to your rhetoric than I did and drag you to a drama board to complain about it. Sorry for polluting your talk page, Star Mississippi. Please feel free to delete without any objections on my part. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @AlexEng. Always helpful to have a fuller picture and endorses my thoughts that this is too complex an issue for further discussion in deletion-related venues beyond the completed nomination. While I think everyone would prefer to avoid the drama boards, Talk:Homestay could be a great venue for content while Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard seems active and can help with broader issues, if they remain present. @Geysirhead I have not researched the issue beyond the diffs present here, but I suggest you heed AlexEng's advice. Star Mississippi 21:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Star Mississippi, you are very polite. Thank you for your advice, but I do not need a separate page any more, I am perfectly fine with a Bewelcome-redirect which I created per WP:NNC. Like everybody else, I am not competent enough and I learn.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Always happy to help, and we're all always learning. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 19:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

User:NeverTry4Me

Hi. Was going to add something at the AfD, but it's getting kind of long. Not only has their editing been a bit tendentious, but they are also most likely a UPE, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib Baruah. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I flagged that at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single_purpose_account_of_User:GeezGod but luckily NeverTry4Me flamed out in the thread below since it didn't seem anyone was going to take action based on the various threads opened. I wouldn't be surprised if Geez is someone's sock, and I don't necessarily advocate POINT editing, but unfortunately sometimes it has to happen. Star Mississippi 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bless you for putting that AfD out of its misery. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Any time. The ratio of useful feedback to nonsense was ridiculous. We were spending more time clerking than anyone was !voting. There may be a case to be made for notability, but it wasn't going to come out of that discussion. Star Mississippi 23:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. AfD would go a great deal more smoothly in general if people would argue on the basis of the notability criteria that exist, rather than on the ones they wish existed. For my part, thanks for the ping, but I've no interest in dratifying that one myself; too many articles I'd want to improve that lay within my interests/areas of expertise to touch ones that don't. Ravenswing 23:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Same. Plus I have no pressing need/interest in taking up the mantle of paid editors' work. I feel no need to be paid for my contributions, but I'll be damned if someone else is collecting on my work. I think this editor was in over their head, and it was a true CIR v. malice situation. And oh my yes, I made the mistake of getting back into some school debates and they're as bad as they ever were. When Sports finishes eating the VP, I think schools may follow (again). I knew you and Necrothesp were coming at it from a place of having looked into it, so I was happy to provide it if you wanted it. Star Mississippi 01:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)