This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sdrqaz, for the period February to May 2022. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Liza. I had thought that Draft:TOR Wines has been written by you too, as it was on a similar subject. As it turns out it was written by someone else, please feel free to ignore the second part of my message. Please either continue working on your draft (at Draft:TOR Wines 2) or work with the other editor on their draft. Sorry about causing confusion. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Liza, the first draft is at Draft:TOR Wines. If you want to retrieve your draft, you may want to speak to the deleting administrator, Bbb23, on their talk page. Since you're on desktop, you might want to enable this tool, which is useful for talk page discussions, helping you to sign and notify editors you are mentioning (use the + sign): Preferences → Beta features → Discussion tools. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Sdraqaz, Hi I haven't been able to get through to the editor who took the other post down. Is there anything else I can do? Also how do I update the first stub/listing to make it an article? Best, Liza Liza Zimmerman (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Liza, you can create a page on the same subject if you feel that it won't be promotional. If you want to appeal the deleting administrator's decision, there is deletion review, which has instructions on how to do that. As for making your draft an article, you can submit it for consideration by AfC reviewers by adding {{subst:submit}} to the page. However, I advise you to follow Star Mississippi's advice. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, How are are you? Are you able to help me with the edits for TOR at all? Everyone else just removed everything I have edited without telling me how it should be done. I would appreciate any assistance you could provide me with. Thanks, Liza Zimmerman (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine, Liza, thank you. Sorry for the late reply. I see that since your message, you've received advice from Star Mississippi and TheTechnician27. I'm not sure what else I can add to those pieces of advice – I don't really edit in the area of wine and they seem reasonable to me. Sometimes there are subjects that we want to write about, but they're not considered notable by Wikipedia at the moment (believe me, I've been there). I'm not 100% sure that this is the case here, but it might be. Sorry this wasn't more helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, thanks for cleaning up the situation with International School -- the editor who made the changes is brand new (as part of a class where I'm the teaching assistant). I'll make sure he understands what happened.
Thank you, Kaylea. It wasn't a big deal – we just don't like having duplicate articles on the same subject. My page move shouldn't be considered a rejection of the student's contributions, just that they were in the wrong place and they shouldn't be disheartened. Thanks for your work. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, very interesting. They had flitted across my watchlist a couple of days ago, but I didn't look too much into it as they didn't have a substantial track record to examine then. The areas of interest are the same, but the username is slightly different to what I would expect. I've filed a report and will let the experts determine with their tools. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I haven't forgotten. I am making progress, though shamefully slowly. As you can see from my contribs, I am barely editing Wikipedia at the moment. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Technically, they are synonyms. In my state, Hawaii, I will get carded at any store if I try to purchase Buckler, because it contains low alcohol (0.5% abv). In the US, low-alcohol and non-alcohol mean the same thing, which is confusing for people outside the US. As you can imagine, alcohol laws (or their vestiges) in the US, have lots of problems. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this oddity, though if they were truly synonymous, I'm slightly confused why you reverted it anyway, Viriditas. The reason I made my change was that the sentence was calling Mr Biden both someone who didn't drink alcohol and someone who drank an alcoholic beverage... it didn't make much sense. The Washington Post source didn't comment on the drink's alcoholic content either. As an attempted compromise, I've removed the clause regarding its content to avoid this low-alcohol/non-alcohol thing – the reader can look it up if they want to. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to answer your question, the reason I reverted is because the source used loaded, ambiguous language to describe low-alcohol beer. On Wikipedia, we always default to the less ambiguous, more exact term, regardless of the what the source says, since encyclopedic writing has a different requirement than journalism, which will always default to local, colloquial, and regional uses of a word or term to meet the expectations of their readers. Wikipedia uses the term low-alcohol beer as the subject title for this reason. Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry about it – just don't do it again . If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, my talk page is available. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Hey brother see my all batchmates have wikepedia page and I also want too so. How I write Article about me and my work that doesn't cause any violation of terms of wikepedia.
Please Help me! 😔😔--Dr. G K Goswami (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Dr. G K Goswami (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
G K, nobody has a right to a Wikipedia article – your friends having articles doesn't mean you must have one too. I would advise you to wait for someone without a conflict of interest to create the article, if you are notable – that's the guideline we generally use to decide whether we should have an article. Because Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the whole world about themselves, it also means that articles we have cannot be controlled like your personal website or LinkedIn profile. If you insist on having an article, following my original advice would be best, but the draft was declined. There's a lot of good advice in that message – if you make changes according to it, you can re-submit the draft. Also, please don't call me "brother".Sdrqaz (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dr. G K Goswami: Not necessarily – there's no guarantee of approval because not everyone is notable. I would concentrate on finding independent, reliable sources that cover you in good detail. There might not be any, or there might not be enough. If that's the case, your draft may not be approved. No need for "Respected Sir" either – not all editors are male. Just "Sdrqaz" is fine.Sdrqaz (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I am an IPS Officer and everyone knows about me If you just search about me on Google you get information about me.I put all reliable sources that available all newspaper articles, interviews about me.Can you give me any article example that already COI disclose because i read the terms of conflict of interest and i just want an example how to disclose a COI. Dr. G K Goswami (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I have reviewed the criteria for notability for G.K. Goswani; from my evaluation the criteria have not been met – "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." And, if I am wrong, and missed "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" the article is still best written by a totally independent editor. Re – "all batchmates have wikepedia page." The Wiki article Uttar Pradesh Police lists 25 executive officers, including Dr. Goswami – not one has their own article. And, as noted above, this fact would not have anything to do with Goswani's notability positively or negatively.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sdrqaz, about this comment you made, does that mean that ARCA is the only place where I can request an appeal at this time? Thanks. Ypatch (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Sdrqaz. There are some unresolved things concerning my topic-ban that I think may get lost in the course of time, this is why it may be better to appeal at ARCA sooner rather than later, but I really appreciate all your advise. Ypatch (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Congrats on your impending adminship, but I have one small question
Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion
Contrary to popular belief, this is not really User:Galobtter editing a template
Hi. You're doing very well, you're a fine editor and we all look forward to as an addition to the admin corps. Hopefully you're not stressed. But... I hate to be "that guy", but I had a pertinent question about the photo on your user page. There's a thread on the RfA talk page if you want to chime in (you don't have to of course). Again, congrats. Herostratus (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Uncertain as to the strength of that. I don't think complacency over accountability is best encouraged; suffice it suggest that, had the discussion regarding the photos got to the stage it has in the first few hours of the candidature, those numbers would almost certainly look...very different. SN5412919:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
You mean, you think this is still about pictures? Ah. Anyway, I've generate enough message alerts for poor old Sdrqaz, I'm done. SN5412919:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe SN, but I think not. I would have expected most people who voted to have visited Sdrqaz's userpage (maybe that's too much expectation, but it's one I have) and the pictures are kind of hard to miss and since it's been proven it's not a licensing issue I don't see it being something hugely different than the question asked and answered early on about the topic. Not to mention that the discussion has been open a few days. I think Herostratus has acted completely reasonably here and agree with the importance of WP:ADMINACCT (indeed I'm more firmly on the record than most about this topic) but this isn't that. There is no tool use here and I think it's a weak case for WP:ADMINCOND at best. Further Sdrqaz did answer the actual question in the RfA about it and given all the bugaboos about candidate activity that doesn't strike me as an unfair way of engaging in the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Herostratus and I have tussled, including in my RfA. They enjoy playing the devil's advocate but they are not unreasonable. Hang in there everybody. BusterD (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I don't often read requests for adminship, but a friend happened to link to yours so I unfortunately gave it a skim, including the talk page. I found Herostratus' comments really unbecoming and unnecessary. His paragraphs of text read like a toxic mix of soapboxing and sealioning. I think you'll be a fine admin and I'm glad that Herostratus is no longer one here. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:MZMcBride. Well, those are some pretty strong words! Would you be so kind as to be more specific about where I went off the rails, so that I may learn and grow and avoid such errors in future? Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
We have been pretty specific in the talk page discussion on the rfa already, you told him that he didnt need to respond if he didnt want too, and then went back and said 'Why didnt you respond". Thats not an ok thing to do. PerryPerryDTalk To Me14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Well... "you don't have to respond if you don't want to" is pro forma politeness, intended to destress and grease the wheels of intercourse. Candidate is already stressed by going thru an RfA currently, I want to bend over backwards be polite and not sound contentious or threatening. Do you think I should not do that."If you don't mind, would you please get off my foot" is not to be taken literally and responded to with "nah, I'm good", and if it is a reply of "Get off my foot right now" would not be considered out of line. If you know this and are just being contrary, please don't do that. If you don't understand how politeness works, well, I suggest you need to work on that.And I mean it is literally true that candidate could not be forced to respond. That is true regardless of whether I was impolite or not. So why be rude for no reason, and anyway honey is better than vinegar. It doesn't mean that I think it was OK for them to actually not reply. I don't.User:Sdrqaz, as an admin, may I suggest you will need think about controlling your talk page more than you are accustomed to and make sure people like this aren't answering posts in what people might consider your voice. Of course most lurker posts are OK, but we all have to do this occasionally ("Mr Smith, please don't answer for me" / "Mr Smith doesn't speak for me, what I think is..." / or even "Mr Smith, please stay off my talk page"). And as admin, well... people... and so, something to consider I think. Sdrqaz, if you'd be kind enough to please disavow User:PerryPerryD's statement, that would would be great, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
So, Because i called you out for your general rudeness, you decide to call for admin attention to remove my statement? You ever hear of something called a boomerang? PerryPerryDTalk To Me02:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think your statement should be removed, but disavowed. I don't think I was rude, I mean what I said was
Hi. You're doing very well, you're a fine editor and we all look forward to as an addition to the admin corps. Hopefully you're not stressed. But... I hate to be "that guy", but I had a pertinent question about the photo on your user page. There's a thread on the RfA talk page if you want to chime in (you don't have to of course). Again, congrats.
How the gosh dark heck could I have been any more polite and gentler than that short of not raising the question at all (which we are allowed and expected to raise pertinent questions at RfA, even if the candidate is a fine editor and candidate)? Educate me, please. Herostratus (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Herostratus, I will not lie to you. I felt misled. It is entirely possible that this is a misunderstanding due to the limitations of text-based communication, but being explicitly told that I do not have to respond to something, then being opposed for doing exactly that, is confusing. I wish the message had been clearer and I wish that the heart of your note had not been obscured by "pro forma politeness". Given that you had not used your two-question quota, being asked it in the "questions" section of the RfA would have been even better to clarify your intentions, but what is done, is done. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Looking at this !vote ratio, along with the half-baked attempts of oppose discussions, I believe that, not to jump the gun here, your adminship is pretty set in stone. Congratulations. PerryPerryDTalk To Me17:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It seems the tone of your RfA is much worse than one would hope for. It understandably is causing you a lot of wikistress so here's a sleepy kitten! It's finally good weather here in NL so I hope it's good weather where you are so you can enjoy nature a bit to ground you from the heightened emotions. As a USSC nerd I really appreciate your work on shadow docket, hope to see more of that type of content from you in the future :) Feel free to ping me if you need anyone to peer-review legal articles you work on.
Thank you, A. C.. The weather here's been reasonable and I'm glad I had the chance to spend a few hours outdoors a few times this week. I think there's certainly still some work left on that piece – as I wrote in my answer to Q13, hopefully one day the scholarship will catch up with the "popular" media. Thanks for the offer! Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Your glamorous photos
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
How can I be sure you aren't HU or Jinsoo? Everybody around here is pseudonymous anyhow. Well, if you are one of them, thanks for showing up. This joint could use more class. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
It’s safe to say there’s no Jupiter stopping the inevitable, hence allow me congratulate you in advance on your successful RFA. Furthermore I note what you did (or said) in the comment section in which you show your dissatisfaction about the bickering amongst editors and reprimand even those supporting you & this is precisely why you’d make a great sysop in my opinion. I !voted for you because I believe you’d be helpful against tackling less than ethical practices such as COI editing and your response to my question confirmed my thinking. Please do not let me down and do well to indeed fight against unethical practices as you have promised to. Oh well, congratulations once more on your successful RFA in advance. . Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Celestina. It probably wasn't the "smartest" thing to do politically, but I felt that I would regret it if I didn't. I will continue acting against spam and unethical practices, as I did before my RfA. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, you followed the west wing too? Is it awkward that my favorite character was Josh Lyman yeah but nahhh we definitely do not wanna tempt the wrath of The Whatever, high atop The Thing. In retrospect, Sdrqaz knows I love her but she must have seen that comment and be like “damn is Celestina effing crazy” . Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Celestina007: Well, I wasn't alive until the back half of the show, so I didn't follow it at the time; but it's absolutely my favourite show! I've been doing lots of work on the articles about the woman characters recently (and I leave west wing quotes justabouteverywhere :D) i'm very excited, i've not seen a wingnut around the here in a while! (and no, i don't think it's awkward, except that my favourite is probably either toby or C. J., ahaha) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations Sdrqaz! A well-deserved entry into WP:200 🙂 and @SilkTork: I was just about to tidy away Sdrqaz's now redundant user rights, but I assume you'll get them while you're here? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations Sdrqaz, welcome aboard! If you have any questions, my talk page is always open. You can also ping me on IRC. -- LuK3(Talk)15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, LuK3! I'll stop poking you for revdel now, though you'll still have to deal with the Oversight... I'll be sure to ask when I have something. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for getting me to where I am now, Blade. Shouldn't I be the one sending you some ? When I have questions, I'll come knocking. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations and apologies for being one of the following who badgered the opposition. I'd like to say in all honesty most of the opposes weren't granted and not necessary at all. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 17:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Curiously, I find myself doing that more and more, sometimes reading through historical Committee cases. My work with the Oversight team also usually doesn't leave traces on-wiki. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Note: Two messages from Thryduulf and Ad Orientem, and their subsequent responses, were moved to this section from § Congratulations On Your RFA. Three messages from SoyokoAnis (titled "Congratulations!"), PerryPerryD and Cabayi (titled "Congrtatulations!"), and their subsequent responses, were moved to this section; these headings were removed and merged into the previous messages.
Article moves
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, thanks for this. Your edit summary said to carry out the move, but when I try to move the page to "Ginni Thomas" I get the following message: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Still not 100% sure how moves entirely work so I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is. Thanks. Endwise (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, migosh! Outrageous! A new admin that admits error and even thanks the messenger for pointing it out! What's the opposite of "trout"? For my part, I didn't !vote in the latest RfA. Not because I didn't care. Not because I have any wiki-ambition to clerk or crat. I forgot the process's close. D'oh! Please understand I have abundant confidence in the successful candidate and would have jumped in if my support would have made any difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusterD (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
That's an... eye-opening message to come online to! Thanks, Beeblebrox; my RfA was an experience. I did consider it in my initial wave of administrative scripts, but hesitated because I don't think it allows for multiple responses at once. There's a lot of variation in RfPP templates, so am considering it mainly for that venue. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
The RfA process is a shitty one and I hate opposing even at the best of times, doubly so when the motive for my oppose is not actual concern that the candidate lacks what it takes to be an admin but the meta concern that a bona fide issue isn't being taken seriously in the RfA. While I don't regret my oppose, I do regret the less than ideal wording, so I apologise for that. I do have confidence that you will be a good admin. I also have respect for the tactful way you criticised badgering of opposes. — Charles Stewart(talk)19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Charles, I think that the community does take copyright violations seriously, as it demonstrated less than a week before my RfA. I think where you and other voters disagreed was whether the image in question was actually a copyright violation. I appreciate the clarification that libel was not an issue for me and the apology, and am doubly appreciative of your kind comments. I hope that we can work together in some capacity soon. Take care, Sdrqaz (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm generally OK with how the community treats copyvios; in fact, I think WP could do with loosening up a bit about fair use, cf. User:DGG#Copyvio. (I'm less happy with community enforcement of BLP policy: there we could do with substantial tightening up). I did catch that the image was eventually shown to be free; the issue was that reasonable doubt was cast on our basis for classing the image as free. What led to my oppose was the "nothing to see here" attitude when there was a bona fide cause for concern about our processes. — Charles Stewart(talk)20:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, I'm sorry I never completed your review. It looks like you didn't need it though! Congratulations on the successful RfA! Very well done! Real life got in the way, and I was away from Wikipedia for a very long time. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't wait for you, Hammersoft, but am glad to hear back from you – I was getting worried that something untoward might have happened. My RfA had quite a good top-line (although I am responsible for all the opposes this year out of the four successful RfAs), but wasn't wonderful below the surface: this section has a bit on the main sticking point. Hope you and your loved ones are doing well, Sdrqaz (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
You certainly had no obligation to wait for me. It is I who is and should be apologetic to you for not following through on my promised intent. I am a person of my word, and it hurt me to have to not complete your review. Life very much got in the way in a rather big way. Things are starting to get back to a more even keel, but things are still...wonky. Re your RfA: People find the silliest things on which to oppose sometimes. I'm aware of at least a few people who are admins who do not pass their own criteria. That's a sad bit of hypocrisy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes our best-laid plans go to naught, Hammersoft. I'm certainly not going to blame you for things beyond your control . I'm happy to hear that things are stabilising, though. As for the RfA, the optimist in me takes some satisfaction that none of the concerns were based on administrative competence. Being told that I had a fundamental misunderstanding of CSDs or revision deletion would have been a blow. Part of why I waited three months from being asked to transclusion (apart from avoiding clashes and others) was that I needed to be confident that I was in a position where I would have voted for myself. I won't hide the fact that I am a little harsher than the median voter at RfA. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Colin M RFA
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry if I'm missing something but it's not clear why you have removed the IP address and edit summary here, but done nothing with the edit itself? Having seen the original edit I don't see anything that needs suppressing? GiantSnowman15:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I have now removed the content as well (thank you for reminding me). I can only assure you that the revision deletion was within policy and all will become clear soon. I'm sorry I cannot be any more forthright. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: An editor voted in the RfA while logged out, exposing their IP address. They then rolled back their edit, which meant that the edit summary contained the IP. Given that the Oversight policy allows for the suppression of non-public personal information, specifically "IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses" (criterion one), and the revision deletion policy allows for the revision deletion of such edits beforehand, I redacted the IP address (129667821) and the user's edit summary (129667825), then the revision's contents (129667910). Sdrqaz (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Gerda! I'm honoured to join that long list. I wasn't sure at the time if I struck the right balance with that answer at RfA, but I'm glad that you liked it. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, - I felt understood ;) - it's on my user page where I traditionally picture men and women, at the moment - making an exception - not including myself, but I took that pic which made it to the German Main page but not the English (well, yes, but in 2016, not now) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at that photo, everything looks so ethereal and so graceful. Maybe it's the combination of white clothes with the background. All the more meaningful in these times. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Sdrqaz,
Just a piece of advice, when I delete pages I use Twinkle to do so. One reason is that, after a page has been deleted, Twinkle has an "unlink" feature that, if you select it, will unlink all of the places where the page title has been linked to on the project. It won't remove the mentions (though XFDCloser does) but it will make sure that there aren't any red links leftover from a page deletion. When I saw this particular page was deleted, I also saw that the page creator had added the article to other articles on autism so I removed those mentions either by removing the page from the See Also section or by unlinking it in the body of the article. I don't use the unlink option with every deletion, it's unlikely that a category or draft page will be linked anywhere else but it's useful to do when you delete pages in the main space of the project because editors are encouraged to crosslink articles.
When Twinkle unlinks the title, it also lists the pages where the deleted page title appeared so you can take the next step of going to some of those pages and removing the mention completely. For example, let's say that I deleted a page titled "Alison Williams (actress)" and on the unlink list, there is the page "Williams (surname)", then I know that Alison Williams was listed on the page as a famous person with the Williams last name so I can go to that page and remove the mention of her page which is easy to spot now because the mention will not longer be an active link so no brackets surrounding it. I hope this helps! LizRead!Talk!23:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, Liz. Thank you for taking the time to go through all of this with me – I think I disabled the "unlink" feature because I didn't think I'd have much use for it and similarly didn't install Evad37's gadget. This was helpful, thanks ! Sdrqaz (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Admin help template
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Firstly, congrats on your RfA passing, but I just noticed that you closed an admin help template with the helped parameter instead of the answered parameter. Kind Regards, Zippybonzo | talk13:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Zippybonzo, for pointing it out and fixing it. I was on mobile for that edit, which meant that I couldn't actually see the template except in-source. I was relying on my memory, which evidently in this case failed me. Sorry about that. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is allowed, yes, but attribution is required. And when the article is a word-for-word copy of the existing draft (Draft:SSSPM J0829-1309), there is no good reason for it's independent existence. If one particularly insists (and one disagreed with the rejection on notability grounds), the draft should have been moved to mainspace instead of copying without attribution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, Spf121188; UAA gets backlogged very easily. I noticed that you had began reporting there yesterday and it took me a while to get used to UAA too: the instructions there aren't as intuitive as I'd like, if I'm honest. Thanks for reaching out – it's better that these things get cleared up earlier on for future reference . Sdrqaz (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DrSalvus23:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: See here. A move was carried out in accordance with those wishes, as it had not been specified that a redirect should have been suppressed.
Apparently not enough of a block still
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I dunno, seems like a bad idea to block individual pages. But do whatever you guys want. Also, I usually find /42s too narrow on Verizon, but feel free to do whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know and for the quick resolution, everyone. The last three IPs that person had used (C201, 4B01, 2101) gave a /27, which was too wide for me to assess collateral, so I went with the last two IPs they'd used for the /42 in an effort to stop this /64 Whac-A-Mole (C201, 4B01, 2101). With hindsight, I should've gone with a projectspace partial block instead of the AN-and-ACN one I did (I was trying to make it as surgical as possible, given that they'd only touched those two). On the bright side, we now know that the user hasn't hopped ranges yet... Thanks for the blocks, NinjaRobotPirate and Zzuuzz, and for the advice. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
History merge request
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Shubhra Gupta and Collin D'Cunha Article Discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If I am wrong then tell me why it took so long for nominating the deletion process of the Article Shubhra Gupta and Collin D'Cunha? Because if the article had violated the guidelines why it should keep in mainspace with wikidata item? I don't think both articles has some unauthentic content and violation edits!!!
Please consult and remove the tag of deletion as soon as possible after discussion only otherwise I have to take a deliberate action further!!! Morgankarki (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Morgankarki: I didn't say you were wrong; I just re-inserted the deletion discussion notices. As for why articles take so long to be patrolled, since Wikipedia is built by volunteers and is dependent on people's interests, there is a shortage of people willing to do that work. While Wikidata may be a sister project, it is separate to Wikipedia and has different policies and guidelines. Pages that exist there as items may not exist here as articles, and vice versa.Deletion discussions typically take seven days to be closed (sometimes longer) and the notices are unlikely to be removed before then. I suggest that you join in the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collin D'Cunha and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shubhra Gupta, since the nominator has provided the reasons for why they think the articles should be deleted there. If by "take a deliberate action" you mean taking legal action, legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure, Bluerasberry. It's a recent creation from February and just thought it'd be good to let you know since the regular {{db-move}} has "(link to perform this move)", so it's easy for the eyes to skate over the other notes and just perform it. All credit to Primefac. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please don't correct people for something they are not likely to have been aware of
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. Regarding that page in Icelandic: Apparently you believe that every time I come across a page that isn't tagged for deletion but that qualifies for speedy deletion,
I should first spend time reviewing its talk page to see if it's the one such page in 100 where the author has already acknowledged that the page should be deleted; and, also,
that because the user has acknowledged that on the article's talk page, I can reasonably expect that an administrator will somehow know that the author has written that acknowledgement and will come by to delete the page despite the page not having been tagged for WP:CSD G7.
I still am not aware of what had been done, before my tagging of the page, to arrange for the page to be deleted, even though the author's comments qualified it for G7. Even if something had, behind the scenes, been arranged with an administrator, it hardly caused any harm for me to tag it. Your scolding was unwarranted and, honestly, baffling. Your expectation as to to the lengths editors should go through before posting a warranted deletion tag is unrealistic. Largoplazo (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: You have misread my comment, as I was referring to the page history and not the talk page. For ease of reference, I have restoredJulia (forritunarmál) so that you don't have to take my word for the history's contents. From the third paragraph of the speedy deletion policy: "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." Taggers and administrators are also instructed in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Introduction to criteria to "review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion". When you tagged the page, there were three revisions in the page history. The second one had an edit summary of "Please delete article!" and had written "Please delete, I meant to start this article at Icelandic Wikipedia...", commented out, in the article itself.You're correct that a tag had not been added to the page to arrange for its deletion, so thank you. However, it would be better for everyone involved if the tag were the most appropriate one and giving the author unnecessary notifications were avoided – it's distressing for some new users to get the orange bar of doom, but luckily in this instance he was highly experienced.My expectations of others is enshrined in policy. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't fault any of your motivations. I'll just note that I understand the part about reviewing a page's history, and ordinarily do so. I'll note only that, as a practical matter, in the case of an A10 situation involving an article not in English that is about the same subject as an existing article, the only way reviewing the history is generally going to alter the outcome is if, at some point, the article was about something else—for example, if this article whose title is Icelandic for "Julia (programming language)" had, in one version, been rewritten to be about a species of lizard that didn't already have its own article. In this particular case, therefore, I missed the existing call by the author for deletion, and I agree that it would have been nicer if I had seen it and quietly posted a G7 at the top of the article without the assistance of Twinkle. (Or, perhaps, even with Twinkle, since I think Twinkle knows not to post an author notice for G7.) Largoplazo (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Bearcat: The page you deleted was restored for a non-administrator to view its history, as I tried to make clear in its protection log. A mini-DRV, if you will. Since the comment has since been resolved, thank you for re-deleting. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
That's not a thing at all. Under exactly no circumstances should a page in mainspace ever not be an article, and under exactly no circumstances should a page in mainspace ever not be categorized. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
If anything you do to any page in mainspace ever results in that page showing up on the Untagged Uncategorized Articles list — as the page under discussion here was — then I always have to do whatever is necessary to get it off that list. In principle, in fact, no page should ever be showing up on that list at all, because every page in mainspace always has to be categorized, but if and when a page does show up there I have to get it off there, and there can never be any exceptions where I have to leave a page on it because it's somehow uncategorizable. If that page ever has any entries at all, I have to empty it out. So whatever you want to do to a mainspace page for whatever reason, it is always your responsibility to ensure that you're not leaving the page uncategorized in the process. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't add a category to a temporarily-restored page for a history review. While in this instance the deletion was helpful, your deletion log entry and subsequent messages here seem to show that you did not check that the discussion was resolved before deletion. Taking a page out of a "categories needed" maintenance report can be addressed by adding a category (as you did) instead of blanket deletion. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Hekstina: A copy of the page is available here and will expire in a week. As the deletion log makes clear, it is unambiguous promotion. If you resubmit a page that is similar to it, it will be deleted again. If your aim on Wikipedia is to promote this company (or any others), I suggest that you find a different venue because we have a low tolerance for spamming. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuous guidance. Please the article is for posterity record and not for advert. Thanks once again. Hekstina (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, you declined my speedy request and I see it was probably not right category. Sorry for that. But this version 2 page and subsequent redirect is nonsense. What approach you suggest here? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Admin's Barnstar
This is the second time within two days that I'm positively impressed by your careful application of tools, your careful analysis of the situation and the advice provided beyond default templates. It's good to have you in the team. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Which page is now the foundation of the Rise of the TMNT Movie page? I’m beginning to think the manner you went about this was wrong--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I know from the declination of the CSD A-10 request of the mainspace article, and the histmerge request of the draft, that I used the wrong processes. I just don't know what to do in this case and tried to follow what I believed is the best. I'm sorry for messing things up. Now, can you please help me out with what process to follow? The mainspace article appears to be largely a copy of draft article, given that every single citation and the info in it is the same. The draft wasn't attributed to either. Meanwhile, this article simply doesn't belong in mainspace. Delgado will leave Congress according to New York's Governor. But when? It can be tomorrow, or 3 months later or simply after the current term is over triggering no special election at all. New York's special election law states that vacancies after July, are NOT to be filled by special election. So far, there is no official indication or confirmation from the candidate or his office that vacancy would occur anytime before that. This article relies on speculation by political WP:crystal balls and is itself a crystal ball too. It's a WP:FUTUREEVENT with no indication that it'll actually happen. It's just WP:TOOSOON to be on mainspace. Your help to fix the unattributed copy and draftifying it would be appreciated. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})14:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@CX Zoom: I'm personally not convinced that 2022 New York's 19th congressional district special election is an unattributed copy of Draft:2022 New York's 19th congressional district special election. If we compare the 4 May versions of the two pages, when Amariokart finished their initial bout of editing (article and draft), there are enough differences that makes it seem like they sprang up independently: different citation styles for the New York Times source, as well as other formatting and citation differences elsewhere. As we know, these election articles follow a certain template, so there are bound to be similarities. After that, there have been some efforts to harmonise the two pages, so it may seem more similar now than it was before.As for the content side of the issue, there has been reporting from that aforementioned New York Times source, POLITICO, and Bloomberg saying that Gov. Hochul has announced that Rep. Delgado will resign this month. I think that many (including myself previously) misinterpret CRYSTAL to mean that we cannot have articles based on speculation on future events. However, "[a]ll articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This seems to be the case here. I would suggest redirecting the draft to the article and merging any extra information over, with an edit summary noting that it came from the draft to retain attribution. Unfortunately, a history merge here would shuffle the two histories together, rendering the merged one unintelligible. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
If you don't mind can you please take the appropriate steps. I'm in an exam season and unable to dedicate much time here at the moment. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})13:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
You can redirect the second draft to the original if you wish, LPS and MLP Fan, but this isn't the sort of thing that needs to be addressed by deletion. Alternatively, you can leave it alone, since drafts are deleted after six months if there aren't any other edits. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What do you mean by that phrase? That user did nothing but copy paste from an article many other editors tirelessly worked on for months. This is not an article by any means.--Sakiv (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Sakiv: It means non-redirect history. It was not a judgement on the page's quality. Generally speaking, pages tagged with {{db-move}} are only deleted if they were only redirects for the entirety of their history (or, at least, that's supposed to be the case). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Thanks for deleting one of my sandboxes after CSD tagging. I noticed that you referenced G2 in the edit summary; per WP:CSD#G2, it does not apply... [to] pages in the user namespace. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk)11:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: I am aware, but thank you for reminding me. Looking back at my CSD nomination log and my deletion log, I can't find any other G2s in userspace. When deleting that page, I tried to provide a little more information beyond the boilerplate reasons, but ended up adding a criterion that did not apply onto the one that did apply. Regardless, I've restored and re-deleted the page to correct the log entry. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Amudala Kalva question
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hello, you messaged Doesnt qualify now anyways, could you specify what the page doesn't qualify for? And what revisions need to be made? if any, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystuff345 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want to create a different article on the name of the Chief Minister of East Pakistan. So it is important to remove the redirections. Arabi Abrar (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Arabi Abrar, for the redirect to be deleted, you need to have an article ready for that title. You can create your page in draftspace (like at Draft:Chief Minister of East Pakistan) or if you have already prepared an article off-wiki, you can replace the redirect with text from your article. The first option gives you more time to get it ready before publication. When it is ready, you can add {{db-move|name of your draft}} to the redirect so it can be deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sdrqaz, for the period February to May 2022. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Discussion tools. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, my talk page is available. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
. Celestina007 (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Sdrqaz (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chakwood and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 16#Chakwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Done here, SlySabre. A bit of a tricky case that nearly wasn't possible due to some overlapping revisions. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Sdrqaz (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
