User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Article you turned into a redirect after XfD close recreated(?) - Sam Williams (record producer)

Hi! Not quite sure what to do here. It looks like the redirect has been replaced with a different article. Not sure if I should leave this up or restore the redirect. It's been tagged with notability + peacock in the meantime. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Schrödinger's jellyfish and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: who handled while I was asleep. Guessing the new account would be found similar to Laura eley and Hari Teah but they're not overlapping and probably actually all editing on behalf of their client. Star Mississippi 11:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, reading here, it seems @Usedtobecool had figured out the master. Flagging the new ones if you think there's something worth filing. I don't have the history beyond the AfD. Star Mississippi 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, SM. I don't remember much. I probably did not identify the master, may have simply been checking what they might say having noticed the socking activity in the page history. Hari Teah was pushing an older Sam and it appears to have been a simple COI as they said. Hari Teah was a collaborator of that Sam Williams[1]. The new account is an obvious UPE pushing a different topic: created an account, waited a couple days, created a userpage, made a few newcomer task edits, and jumped straight into the article with a full article in a single edit, using an edit summary intended to throw off watchers. It can be blocked as a suspected UPE and suspected sock of Smagzine based on this comparison:[2][3]. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging LilianaUwU. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That Kashisaz account is definitely a sock of Smagzine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Usedtobecool @LilianaUwU for the background

My on wiki time is limited but Sam Williams (artist) tagged as it's a verbatim of the one at the other title, "new" editor blocked for DE since I don 't have bandwidth for SPI right now and I know it's also backlogged. Star Mississippi 12:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that Laura eley and Hari Teah wanted to write about the older Sam Williams, not the 2003 one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

that's what I get for trying to read logs before coffee! Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and fixing ping above to @Jellyfish which the reply tool broke and I didn't catch. Star Mississippi 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this! Responding late as I haven't been on my computer in a bit. The writing set off a few alarm bells, glad to see they didn't ring for nothing. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for gentle advice

Hi Star Mississippi! I wanted to thank you for your post at ANI. I'll step back and not respond except for direct questions to me, of which I anticipate none. I also appreciate the way you phrased it as gentle advice; it made it much easier to swallow! Best, EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome @EducatedRedneck and apologies for the delay. It was definitely a general pointer to move the discussion forward, rather than something you'd done specifically. Star Mississippi 02:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han Bong-zin

Hi Star Mississippi. I noticed you closed the above AFD on a footballer as "redirect" last month. The discussion was flawed as a quick search shows that he is indeed notable, with several in-depth stories available on Newspapers.com ([4] / [5]). One of them even mentioned the North Korean government propaganda radio station called Bong-zin as being a much better player than Pele! Am I allowed to simply revert the redirect (and add sources / expand, of course), or do I have to go through some process to get it restored? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BeanieFan11. We don't have soft redirect, but given that was borderline soft if it had been deletion, I think this is functionally a contested PROD in that we don't need REFUND/DRV especially since you're an established editor with track record of improving articles. What's your timeline for making the edits? If today/this weekend I'd say just revert the close pointing here so no patrolling editor questions it as out of process. If longer term, I'll draftify it for you and you can move it back when you're done. No preference on my end so let me know your thoughts. Star Mississippi 17:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I probably should be able to get to it within a week. I think I'll just revert it when I'm ready and then perform the expansion. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm not watching the article so just ping me if you need anything from me related to it (or any other article). Have a good day. Star Mississippi 17:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Yala Batik

The four sources I mentioned are articles and a TV documentary entirely devoted to covering the subject, so the assertions (by editors who do not read Thai) that they were mere passing mentions were plainly incorrect. The nom did not respond to my challenging of their misunderstanding, and neither of the two delete !votes addressed any of the sources I identified. I don't quite see how it could be concluded that "Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunately it's not sufficient to assume editors' language knowledge or source access especially with access to translation tools and that your/IP 180 assessment was the arbiter of depth when other experience editors came to a different conclusion. If you believe I closed it incorrectly, you're welcome to file a deletion review and I'd welcome more eyes on it. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 18:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Pardon the delay, but I've just started a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Sri Yala Batik. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, if I have anything further to add I'll do so there to keep it central. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for deleted article

Hi @Star Mississippi, please I want you to assist me restore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ndifreke Ukpong to draft.

I made the same request @User:Liz talk page. please don't be angry.

Usimite (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Answered at User_talk:Liz#Request_for_deleted_article Star Mississippi 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estádio Arena do Município Verde

Why did you redirect an article that clearly passes GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SportingFlyer. As was the case with #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosaso FC above, the community doesn't see these the same way you do. There were two relists without anyone else agreeing with your POV that it was notable. The Portuguese article would not pass en wiki guidelines, and it's not clear that the sourcing you identified is sufficient. I see no other way of closing the discussion. Since this has been relisted twice, I don't see the benefit in a 3rd. If you disagree with my close (vs. consensus) and would like to take this to DRV, please feel free. Star Mississippi 01:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not that anyone agreed or disagreed - no one even interacted with the WP:THREE sources which were presented. And there's plenty of sources available for this one - these [6] [7] [8] articles were all from the start of this year. I know AfD participation is down, and that article wasn't in the best shape, but I believe I clearly rebutted the only deletion rationale, which was that it failed WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @SportingFlyer. AfD participation is down, and outside of major teams the interest level in stadiums has never appeared to be particularly high. No one interacted, or even cared to weigh in but I don't think that's enough to say your rebuttal is sufficient to overcome the nom and the redirects. I would relist, but there was zero input for three weeks and I don't see that (and therefore consensus) changing. If I were !voting I'd have assessed the sources as this link is about a game being cancelled, that's not in depth coverage of the stadium, this one might be usable, but it's about the stadium in the context of the series. I can't access the 3rd. But none of them (again, caveat that I've accessed) are the depth required. Unless you want to take this to DRV (which as I said, I welcome other eyes), I think your best course is using the history and maybe merging stadium information in. A merge would have been a super vote, but that's what would have seemed sensical to me if I'd seen this as an editor and not closing admin. Star Mississippi 12:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It'd be easier to draftify, honestly. I don't care enough about this particular article to save it, I'm just frustrated with the state of affairs at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 17:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Just tagged you where I responded at length about this state of affairs. Let me know if you're going to draftify or if you'd like me to. No preference on my end. Star Mississippi 18:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/World Runners Association

I was really hoping the redirect option would take but I guess too much mixed bag. :( What is the acceptable time frame to re-nom? S0091 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @S0091

Given the relatively high volume of discussion, I'd say ~ three-six months. I don't know that it's a hard rule, but it's what feels right so if you disagree, feel free to do it sooner. I'd say no sooner than a month and three has the benefit of getting out of summer participation dip.

You could start a discussion as to merger on the Talk in the interim, if that's something you might find acceptable. Star Mississippi 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, SM. I didn't consider the summer slump and merger might be the way to go but I'll wait a while either way. S0091 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Summer slump has been A Thing that Liz and I have noted, although I'm not sure it's overall worse than the general decline, so we may not see it this year. I hope not, we really can't afford a further dip and still achieve consensus in how certain subjects should be covered. Star Mississippi 01:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Mauritania

Did you read the article? Can you tell me what the other !voters are talking about? I certainly can't tell. Srnec (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. And I've re-read their input and I don't see another way to close this discussion. That there was a community unfortunately doesn't necessarily confer notability to the topic. Star Mississippi 21:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what the other !voters are talking about. It is hard for me to take their statements in good faith. Srnec (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to make that ask of them, or file a DRV if you believe I closed it incorrectly. Otherwise I'm not sure what further information I can provide @Srnec Star Mississippi 01:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for handling questions about your closures with tact. I definitely couldn't. Mach61 03:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I feel any editor asking in good faith deserves an answer. It's all a collaborative process, and I know I'm not infallible so maybe there's something I missed. Star Mississippi 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Restore "Football Broadcast In India"

Hello,

You had recently deleted the wiki page football broadcast in India without any proper context. (I have read the discussion page for deletion and do not agree with the reasoning for deletion)

I request you to kindly restore the page as It is very important for Indian Football Fans Aditya Khanna Wikiepdia (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football broadcast in India was closed with a clear consensus. If you believe I closed it incorrectly, you're welcome to file a Deletion Review. However, simply disagreeing with the reasoning is not grounds for it being restored, and I cannot do so when there was a deletion discussion. Star Mississippi 02:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

David Carnivale

Dear Star Mississippi, This is David Carnivale.I was disappointed you deleted my article; one I was proud to have for nearly 16 years, and I ask that you reconsider. The reason you gave was insufficient sourcing. Because it is understandably improper for people to edit or change their own page, and because I never knew anyone able to do so, I was unable to make a few corrections over the years, and the article missed the change to trademark law my lawsuit brought about - again, something I myself couldn't add. As an objective administrator, you can look at the corrections and updates I've made to bring the artic le up to date, and see that I have added many links to sources that you found wanting. Law journal articles, notices of awards given 20 years ago and some newspaper articles have links that - after many years - sometimes no longer work, but I have provided many that still do. Thank you for looking into this, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale

below contains what the article had for nearly 16 years, along with some corrections, some new updated material and sources for you to review and hopefully approve:

article draft
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
David John J. Carnivale (born April 29, 1958) is an architect, preservationist, author, and artist. He was the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996 and which reproduced his 1996 book The Affordable House (the second book to appear cover-to-cover on the internet March 15,1996). The website was revised and simplified in 2022. The book was originally published by BookSurge.com. In 2000, David Carnivale stopped the demolition of, and subsequently restored one of the nations oldest residences, the 1678 Lakeman-Cortelyou House in New Dorp, Staten Island. In 2005, he stopped the demolition of the 1825 Seaman Cottage which was instead relocated to Richmondtown Restoration, Staten Island. Carnivale has also been active in helping a number of other notable Staten Island structures become designated as landmarks, and for his efforts has won a number of preservation awards. His architectural practice to date has produced plans to approximately 700 projects, including a planned new community and an airport, both in Tennessee, as well as residences in two dozen states and many Manhattan commercial projects. Awards Preservation League of Staten Island Awards in 2002, 2005 and 2006. The Loring McMillen Award for Restoration 2005 given by The Staten Island Historical Society. Four Borough Neighborhood Preservation Alliances. Neighborhood Preservation Award 2008 Historic Districts Council Grassroots Preservation Award, 2009}. Lawsuits From 2001 to 2005, he filed lawsuits against New York State concerning a new continuing education requirement passed by the legislature but written by a special-interest group for their own financial benefit; as a pro se plaintiff his complaint was put on the 2004 docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. He did not prevail but he rewrote the suit and brought it to the New York State Court of Appeals based on NYS Constitutional protections, and the state amended the law in question to satisfy much of Mr. Carnivale's complaint. Trademark law: Acting pre se, he won a trademark infringement lawsuit brought in Delaware District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR) which brought the 1946 Lanham Act into the internet age by a ruling stating that minor changes to a domain name are not a protection against infringement lawsuits (the defendants had added "The" to the plaintiff's domain name for their own website). Decided by Judge Sue L. Robinson 03/31/2010.https://casetext.com/case/carnivale-v-staub-design-2 It was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, remanded for further consideration on two points [Opinion Filed: January 4, 2012] https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2642&context=thirdcircuit_2012 ; the Delaware District Court again found in Mr. Carnivale's favor on January 7, 2013 https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/08-764.pdf , the defendants again appealed to the Third Circuit which affirmed the lower court opinion https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2548&context=thirdcircuit_2013 the defendants unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court for a A Writ of Certiorari, then sought a continuation of their trademark cancellation petition made to the U.S.Patent and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board [Cancellation No. 92047553 Staub Design, LLC v. David John Carnivale].Administrative Trademark Judges. Cataldo, Wolfson, and Masiello dismissed with prejudice the defendants cancellation petition [mailed Nov.4, 2014; Filed: 02/03/2015] 187062/2015.02.03-92047553-Staub-v-David-Opinion-PTO.pdf. The defendants appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [STAUB DESIGN, LLC v. CARNIVALE , No. 15-1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/15-1306/15-1306-2015-08-06.html which found in favor of Mr. Carnivale [Decided August 6, 2015]. Background A native Staten Islander, he was raised in Richmondtown Restoration where he spent his youth helping restore the historic village's Dutch and English colonial era buildings, and learning American architectural history from one of the founders of the restoration (and the island's first Borough Historian) Loring McMillen. Attended Susan E. Wagner High School 1972-1976; Staten Island Community College and Richmond College 1976-1978 (all on S.I.); New York Institute of Technology (Manhattan campus 1978-1980 and Old Westbury L.I. campus 1980-1982) and one semester at the American University of Rome in 1981. References Placed on U.S. Supreme Court docket 6/14/04 as number 03-10797 "David Carnivale v. New York State Department of Education" Index No.04/116780; purchased on 11/29/04" Carnivale v. State of New York et al" 1. NYS Education Law 7308 Amended effective Jan.1, 2005- L.2004, ch.706, section 1;8 NYCRR Section 69.6(b)(1),(c)(1) • Staten Island Advance. Thursday, April 16, 2009. Volume 124 Number 30,019 Page E6 "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" by Tevah Platt. https://www.silive.com/eastshore/2009/04/staten_island_preservation_cru.html • Staten Island Advance. Friday, October 24, 2008. Page A4 "Preservationists hail the work of 2 Islanders" by Advance staff writer https://www.silive.com/southshore/2010/04/reproduction_of_historic_home.html • Staten Island Advance. Sunday, October 15, 2006. Page A9 "Veterans undaunted in quest for cemetery here" by Stephanie Slepian (re: Carnivale's cemetery plans) • Staten Island Advance. August 13, 2009 "Architectural drawings are works of art" by Advance staff writer Nicholas Rizzi https://www.silive.com/eastshore/2009/08/architectural_drawings_are_wor.html • Staten Island Advance. April 29, 2010"Reproduction of historic home under construction in Great Kills" by Sharon Cohen https://www.silive.com/southshore/2010/04/reproduction_of_historic_home.html • Staten Island Advance. Saturday, January 8, 2005. Page A3 "No sites found for veterans' cemetery" by Diane O'Donnell (re:Carnivale's cemetery plans) • Staten Island Advance. Tuesday, March 27, 2001. Pages a1 & A8 "17th century house to stand a while longer" by Karen O'Shea (re: Lakeman house) • Staten Island Advance. Friday, December 31, 1999. Pages A15 &A18 "Hidden treasure may shine again" by Kathleen Lucadamo (re: Lakeman House) • Staten Island Advance. Thursday, March 4, 1999. Volume 113, Number 26, 564 Pages 1, D1 & D3 "Home, Home on the Web" by Karen O'Shea • Staten Island Advance. June 13, 1976. "Islander wins 7 art awards" by Advance staff writer • Red Bank Green September 4, 2015 • https://vintage.redbankgreen.com/2015/09/red-bank-no-decision-on-rayrap-plan/ • Red Bank Green September 4, 2015 https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11618374 https://vintage.redbankgreen.com/2015/09/red-bank-no-decision-on-rayrap-plan/ • Red Bank Green July 30th, 2015 https://www.redbankgreen.com/2015/07/red-bank-rayrap-drops-market-from-plan/ • Red Bank Green July 12, 2016 https://vintage.redbankgreen.com/2016/07/red-bank-rayrap-push-law-change/ • Red Bank Green December 16th, 2016 https://www.redbankgreen.com/2016/12/red-bank-rayrap-clears-first-hurdle/ • Red Bank Green August 7th, 2017 https://www.redbankgreen.com/tag/david-john-carnivale/ • Red Bank Green November 11th, 2020 https://www.redbankgreen.com/2020/11/red-bank-rayrap-azalea-seeks-extension-111120/ External links • The Affordable House • https://www.affordablehouse.com/ • Staten Island Advance • New York Institute Of Technology • https://www.redbankgreen.com/ • https://casetext.com/case/carnivale-v-staub-design-2 • https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/187062/2015.02.03-92047553-Staub-v-David-Opinion-PTO.pdf • https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2642&context=thirdcircuit_2012 • https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2548&context=thirdcircuit_2013 • 187062/2015.02.03-92047553-Staub-v-David-Opinion-PTO.pdf • https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/15-1306/15-1306-2015-08-06.html • https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/08-764.pdf • [Gov.info] https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ded-1_08-cv-00764 • [Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias] https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11618374 https://vintage.redbankgreen.com/2015/09/red-bank-no-decision-on-rayrap-plan/ [Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive, Jan.15,1998 for www.intechnet.com/house which was the original address, until 2005, for The Affordable House] http://web.archive.org/web/19980101000000*/www.intechnet.com/house The Archive copied the website www.affordablehouse.com 411times between November 11, 1998 and April 1, 2024.

2603:7000:6E3B:C199:3551:7BB6:1E3:C4EA (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, I deleted this per the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale and that consensus was fairly strong.

While I am willing to restore the sources you provided to to draftspace Talk, I would recommend that if I do so - you don't edit it. It's hard for anyone to take a neutral perspective on their career and to get the tone right for an encyclopedia vs. writing a biography or profile. I think the best course of action is to start from scratch and only cover that has been includes in independent reliable sources. So this would not include your website, those of the schools you attended. Sources like the Staten Island Advance might work. What do you think of that course of action? Star Mississippi 01:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow you are fast; I just wrote to you within the hour! Of course I shouldn't edit anything about me - and I didn't for 15-16 years and never looked for anyone who could. I made some corrections of misinformation and added new material that has importance in legal circles about how my lawsuit changed trademark law- and sent it to you because only you can judge it and only you can check the may additional sources I gave and decide whether to restore the page.Thanks to Wikipedia, Architects (unlike the other professions) could discove the first architectural website and learn who was the first member of their profession in the internet;15,000 New York State could find out who waged a long court battle that removed an onerous burden place on them by a special-interest organization who managed to slip a piece of legislation through one evening in the state capital requiring them to join a particular private organization or suffer consequences and lawyers had a record of my lawsuit that protects everyone's domain name and altered the way federal courts interpret trademark law. I respectfully suggest that all these things are important and worth making a record of. Of course, as you say, I cannot be neutral- naturally, but each of these things are documented and some are part of the early history of the internet. I realize no one cares whether I went to the University of Rome or not and couldn't care less about where I went to high school - but the things I've mentioned have a larger significance- affecting all domain name owners and many thousands of architects. As far as the book and website- I am at the very end of my career and am not even accepting new clients - so while I was very proud that Wikipedia had an article mentioning them, I no longer gain anything beneficial from it (and am not that sure I ever did, really). I hope you choose to restore the actual article; Wikipedia is a more complete work with it than without it. Thanks for your rapid attention to my note - very impressive speed! Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:3551:7BB6:1E3:C4EA (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies for the short answer as I just have a couple of minutes. Thank you for more of this context. While I'm not sure the trademark and lawsuits are enough, I will start the draft so folks who opined at the discussion can add material such as the article about your recognition as a preservationist. It's possible that it will move back to mainspace, but it's possible it won't. Just wanted to make you aware of that up front as well. Since I am limited in my time right now due to work and some upcoming travel, I will put it through WP:AFC (or another editor may if they get to it first, or choose to move it directly). Thanks again for the sourcing information. Star Mississippi 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it. Enjoy your travel! Dave 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:9AA:796A:5353:8C50 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Dave! The draft has begun here Draft:David Carnivale. I also think some of your sourcing accidentally may have made the case for an article on the house as well. Star Mississippi 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Star Mississippi,

Thank you. I confess to being confused about two things: the draft omits- two things that changed many lives; the 6.5 year lawsuit in New York State which noticeably improved the lives of 15,000 N.Y.S. architects and which led to a change in N.Y.S. law, and the 8.5 year federal lawsuit which led to everyone's domain name being far better protected by federal courts - I know it cannot help but sound immodest but those seem to have a certain importance worth noting, no? Besides, the many links I provided often go to official court records, law journals, etc. so the sources you required are there. Two minor suggestions: the number of projects my page mentioned (500) was out of date on my page; over the years that eventually ended up as being 700. Since I've more-or-less retired, that number is unlikely to change. There is a note that a citation is needed for the fact that "The Affordable House" was the second book published cover-to-cover on the internet: the Internet Archive link I provided shows the book in 1998 (the archive first noticed it that year, although it was on the web since 3/15/96); the Staten Island Advance article "Staten Island Advance. Thursday, March 4, 1999. Volume 113, Number 26, 564 Pages 1, D1 & D3 "Home, Home on the Web" by Karen O'Shea" (The Advance is the flagship newspaper for the entire Newhouse Publications organization and is thus a credible source) discusses it, and it was considered a proven fact by the Delaware District Court (twice), the Third Circuit (twice), the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board based on the evidence submitted during all those trials and which are part of the court records, links to the various court sites of which I gave. Yes, I realize those were paper documents which the courts examined, and a scholar would need to look at the court records rather than a magazine article or such, but it is a citation, a source, and is provable to those wanting to research the matter.The Lakeman-Cortelyou house (which I closed my office one year to personally restore after having blocked the owner's intention to raze it- demolition work that had already begun when I stepped in and had the demolition permit cancelled) is not just the second oldest house on the island, but it is but it is accurate to say that the building is actually one of the oldest buildings in the country. Very few 17th century buildings exist in the states; maybe 100-125 at most. It is interesting that that house has seen the sun rise and set during five different centuries; the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and now the 21st. Wikipedia lists only 45 older 17th century buildings in the country (the Lakeman-Cortelyou house is oddly missing from the list of the oldest buildings in America - an oversight). I am not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why the draft article says the draft is not being considered- maybe that's just an intermediary step. Lastly, the very few sentences my page had about biographical information was rather bare bones but seems now to be entirely missing; encyclopedias usually have some brief mention of a subject's background; at least a little bit might make for a fuller, more useful article. Thanks for reconsidering things. Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:38FD:2021:B394:832C (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, I responded here where you're welcome to participate. There's nothing wrong with your note h ere, I'd just want more folks to see it. Star Mississippi 20:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I would've thanked you sooner but - perhaps because of the solar flare - my ability to reach this page through two different browsers was disrupted for 24 hours. Sincerely yours, Dave Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:ED85:CDA:132C:338A (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Senegal_Flight_301

You semi-protected the page; however, the disruptive User:Artecta has meanwhile been banned, so the rationale for the protection no longer exists. I wanted to contribute because I do think the case may be notable, but can't. There were other factors at play here (second takeoff attempt, engine caught fire) that elevate the impact of this accident beyond a simple runway overrun. --85.16.211.43 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 85. You're welcome to contribute on the Talk page of the discussion. Someone will carry your input over. Star Mississippi 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 8

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Could you look at the bottom of this daily log page? I can't figure out what's gone wrong here as the page displayed correctly yesterday and there have been no new edits to the pag since May 8th. On my laptop, about half of the AFDs are piled up at the bottom of the page instead of displaying the discussions. It will be very tiresome to have to go to each individual AFD page. Thanks for any help you can supply or if you know of some more tech-oriented person to ask. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I' m not seeing what you are so it either resolved or someone fixed it while we slept (or rested your eyes in your case). Hope you are navigating things as well as possible. Star Mississippi 11:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks

Ok, this may be unnecessary, but thanks for thanking this edit. I tried to tell the editor sternly to stop pinging many admins (random ones include Liz, who is currently stressed, and Jimbo, who is, well, Jimbo). This told my senses that this is a good example to follow (and plus, I was happy to see it after a long day at BLPN). (PS, if you're wondering where I got it from, it's here, the post by Dennis Brown under the first unblock request.) So in sum, thank you for your gratitude and helping me learn as an editor. Signed, TheTechie
If you reply here, please ping me. (Standard signature ->) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help them @TheTechie. And you're right, definitely a good call. They're either a sock or meatpuppet who clearly wants to get Saqib sanctioned, there have been a few of those about for reasons I don't fully understand. My guess would be a UPE farm. I should apologize in advance to @Deepfriedokra, the main UTRS patroller, as they're on a path to get their TPA revoked and then unfortunately my favorite root fruit has to deal. You're safe to continue trying to help, or ignore. I'm in the latter as nothing I say will help and some admin may be willing to unblock. Happy to help however I can, ping at any time. Star Mississippi 02:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, are you willing to remove TPA? They keep making nonsense threats/arguments and this is getting nowhere. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No prob. Declines are cheap and so are UTRS bans.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @Deepfriedokra are you talking to me or SM? I'm confused. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it would be really helpful if they had their TPA removed. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hope I don't look like I'm nagging you both. Signed, thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As SM pinged me to apologize, I replied as I did. Not engaged with this debacle, so I will not intervene at this time. You can always turn off notifications if you find them annoying. Mostly I would just ignore . Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've taken it to AN. I'll let someone else handle it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to yank TPA as I'm involved, but their rope is short. @TheTechie I agree with @Deepfriedokra here. Best to just ignore them as the blocked editor didn't seem receptive. THanks both! Star Mississippi 02:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Anytime! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Ahirs as Yadavs

hello, @Star Mississippi. Someone has merged Ahirs as Yadavs into Ahir article without adding the content of this article. Please add the content of this article to Ahir article. Thanks. 2409:4085:8D1D:4B36:0:0:8849:DA09 (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I will not be merging content. However you, @Ratnahastin or any other editor is welcome to do so. Star Mississippi 02:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't do it because I don't have a Wikipedia account user @Ratnahastin did not see the talk page [[9]] nor did he add the content to Ahir article. 2409:4085:8D1D:4B36:0:0:8849:DA09 (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless the article is protected, you can edit it. If you cannot, please use the Talk to make suggested edits. If neither you nor @Ratnahastin is able, someone at the WP:Teahouse may be willing. Have a good evening! Star Mississippi 03:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about blocks

Hello, long time no talk page. I hope all is well. Saw the newest outster for transphobia at ANI and wondered if longer-term editors (the latest only had four edits) or new editors who seem to be editing in good faith should be given one "keep out of jail" notice on their talk page about Wikipedia's policy and asked not to do it again. Not everyone will know about it and that slippery ledge is short and tends to leave no survivors. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

While there might be situations where a last chance applies, but coming here to spew transphobic bullshit with a burner account isn't one of those. There are sites where that might be welcome, you shouldn't need a final warning to know Wikipedia isn't one of them. Star Mississippi 12:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course not for new or vandal accounts with an agenda, but some semi-regular editors who don't know about guidelines and such (thinking about it, a very small percentage of users actually participate in behind-the-scenes backroom discussions) may step over the line without realizing there is a line. That's where a don't-do-it-again note could both educate and keep productive editors editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There are situations where there's a fine line, but there's also basic manners and civil discourse that you should assume when joining any online community. I'm about to step offline, but if you believe Skyfox wasn't a new or vandal account and that I was too harsh, feel free to request a review of my block. If consensus disagrees with it, another admin will lift it and the user will be free to edit. Star Mississippi 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I haven't even looked at the account aside from the number of edits (4) so don't know the wording or circumstances and trust your judgement. The discussion just reminded me of a long-time editor who was bounced awhile back under similar circumstances and thought I'd run the idea of a one-time bye by you. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of giving newbies or oopses some rope. We certainly give it to experienced, but they have to show a modicum of goodfaith. Skyfox hasn't even appealed but assume they'll pop up again soon with a new one, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 02:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

IP changing image at Beard

Hi SM, starting back in January an IP registered to Washington State University has persistently removed or changed the infobox image at Beard. They have received warnings (ex. User talk:69.166.46.175 and User talk:69.166.44.3) along with edit summaries instructing them to go to the talk page. Will you page block them? I think the 69.166.40.0/21 range gets all of IPs. Pinging @Generalrelative as they have reverted them a few time and tried to engage on the talk page. S0091 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the range, made my life much easier. This is done, I'm 99% sure. If there are others, ping me as the disruption didn't seem enough for Semi and I see + contributions from other IPs. Star Mississippi 15:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Page blocks are handy for situations like this. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

To @Deepfriedokra (most likely) or anyone else reviewing UTRS:88716, here's the background. I'm not positive I left the note correctly after DQ's Bot messaged me. I'm going to be offline at the weekend so if further action is needed, feel free to take it. Star Mississippi 20:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ha! Declined by the ever present Yamla. As Yamla says, using someone else's name is, shall we, say, not appropriate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I don't like indefinite partial blocks. A shorter duration would be better. The appeal, IMO, was trollish. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Yamla and @Deepfriedokra for the input.

I'm fine with a shorter p-block. What would you recommend time wise Star Mississippi 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

1 year? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

re-blocked for one year. Thanks! Star Mississippi 20:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. It's so incredibly unlikely this would affect an uninvolved editor now. --Yamla (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(Initially, I was confused by the UTRS request and wondered what on earth you did to lead to a block... it seemed massively out of character). --Yamla (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL same when I got the bot email. Wait, I think I can still edit. Glad I didn't get it at the office or somewhere I didn't have access to edit.

Any rouge admin who really wanted to silence me would know forcing me to UTRS is the way because holy hell that isn't intuitive to me . Thanks again both Star Mississippi 21:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Article ADR Closure

Hi, Star. I see you closed the Ami Dror ADR today. Is there a reason why the ADR template is still up there? --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Omert33. I'm actually not sure whether DRV templates are typically removed from the related AfDs subsequent to close. @OwenX, @Robert McClenon as more active DRV participants, any ideas? Thanks for flagging Omer. Star Mississippi 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Omert33, User:Star Mississippi - I don't pay much attention to the template, but it is my understanding that the template in question is displayed while the DRV is in process and removed when the DRV is closed, at which time any other actions may be also taken (such as relisting the AFD or deleting the article). I see that it has now been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Robert McClenon. I think @Omert33 may be speaking to @A smart kitten's placement of it at the DRV where I still see it. May be cached though. Star Mississippi 02:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. My understanding is that the {{delrevxfd}} templates are left on the relevant XfD page, as a note that said XfD discussion has previously undergone a deletion review. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Urgent help required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick question about close?

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

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

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

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

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

Because it’s my comment. ;)

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

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

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

Deletion review for List of IMAX venues

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

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

May thanks

story · music · places

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

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

Deletion

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

Rejected draft recreation

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Collins

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

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

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

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

"Sangerpedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Your draft article, Draft:9th Avenue Saloon

Hello, Star Mississippi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "9th Avenue Saloon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stephen Bay

Hello, Star Mississippi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Stephen Bay".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Feels strange every time I post these messages on the User talk page of a very experienced editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Nichols DRV

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

Hi @Robert McClenon.

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

About your revision deletion on David Hertzberg

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

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

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

Draft:James G. Hollandsworth

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

Hi @FloridaArmy

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ESPNU personalities

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citybuzz

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

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

Anatolia for deletion?

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

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

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

Nomination of Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westenbroek v. Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pinguinn 🐧 03:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Serenity Cox Restoration

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

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

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

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

AFDs

Hello, Star Mississippi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help for Sanket Goel

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

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

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

Hey, Star,

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

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

AfD analysis

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

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

Spiro Spathis

Hi, not sure what the appropriate next step is. This article was originally a draft and had been declined one four occasions (including the last by me) and was finally rejected as a suitable topic by me. I notice the creator has now moved it to mainspace and removed the AfC notices. What would you suggest? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Do we have any established editors who read Arabic? I don't, and while my gut is this is an SPA/UPE, I can't read the sourcing to determine whether it's anywhere near GNG. That seems to be what @Drmies & @DoubleGrazing were also feeling with potential notability. I've kicked it back to draft for review by an established editor. If you don't feel compelled to remove the rejection, that's totally fine as your POV is just as valid as the other reviewers and there's definitely some TE going on. Further thoughts? Star Mississippi 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt the subject is notable, but in the meantime I called in the help of an expert. I bet User:Al Ameer son imports a case every month for their private consumption. I'd buy it too, but the article doesn't even say what the stuff tastes like. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the version with suggestions by me and another editor. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Being rejected from AfC doesn't indicate much. That process is a mess. There are some advertorial issues and sourcing issues in the content. I am finding some sourcing on Google Books here. Isn't there an editor whose name is something like NorthAmerica3000? 500? who does a lot of food articles? You could also try wp:food. Editors are allowed to move content to mainspace. As there are indications of notability maybe an AfD is warranted? Not sure how an Egyptian soda water brand with Greek roots being promoted as anti-Israel/ West will fare. Not seeing a lot of coverage in English and languages with similar alphabets. In the meantime Draft:Alligator Oil Clothing should be moved to mainspace as its NRHP listed. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your help @FloridaArmy and for rescuing Lake. Is it Northamerica1000 you're thinking of? Looking at Alligator now...Thanks @Drmies and in advance @Al Ameer son. Not sure what they were up to claiming the draft was deleted and quitting the project, but hope it can be resolved? Star Mississippi 00:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rockycape

Thank you for giving the final warning. I was about to make a report to WP:ANI to request a partial block, but I see that report won't be necessary, because they either will stop filibustering or you or someone else will impose cloture. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon. I'm about to go offline for the evening, so if it continues please feel free to file the report or ping another admin. I've cautioned them about badgering/filibustering since the discussion was opened, so they're well aware. Their conduct had improved but regressed to trolling in their response to you. Star Mississippi 02:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The trolling comments have been deleted, and they have actually shut up. That means that on 12 July the DRV can be closed as Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Subject

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

User:Ji Soôo97 - Talk page stalker here. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, then you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. This was a content dispute. If it really had been vandalism, you would have reported it to the vandalism noticeboard, and you did not do that, because you knew it was not vandalism. Yelling Vandalism to "win" a content dispute is more common than it should be, but it is neither effective nor permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't say we didn't warn them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Two SPAs arguing about a soccer match. I don't even get it. Star Mississippi 01:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Alibi's

Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alibi's, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooops?

Obviusly not your intention, but you wiped out a bunch of comments when you intended to move only 1.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

ack! I'm not even sure how to fix that without making a further mess. My sincere apologies. Please do whatever is necessary. cc @Bruxton who I see in the subsequent edit. All 100% accidental Star Mississippi 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It happens. I think most got restored already. Bruxton (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both again! Star Mississippi 17:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Some weird edit conflict is all. Too bad you didn't jettison the entire thread (and the subsequent myriad threads) into the Great Void (just kidding! but not really...)-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)