Star Mississippi is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.
I think maybe you reverted Talk:Jason Itzler by mistake? My edit included four reliable sources: Miami New Times / CBS News / New York Post / Miami Herald.
Also no claims were made other than why don't we cite these sources and this situation - I didn't even interpret them or what to include. JotsBank (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I found it by hearing the name and googling it, isn't that how biographies are generally encountered? Is it common to revert talk page additions which cite newspapers? JotsBank (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
When it's a new account where the article has been undergoing recent disruption leading to protection, yes. You didn't just google and decide to edit his article. Please log into your primary account and, if necessary, request an unblock. StarMississippi12:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I created the infobox for Jason Itzler's wikipedia page not too long ago.
I saw that you locked it due to vandals targeting the page (which was a good decision, considering the individual's recent activities).
Would you be open to restoring the infobox? I feel as if it adds more visual substance and accessibility to the page, let me know if this could be possible. It would be more helpful for the newer traffic to the page as it's currently formatted (somewhat) poorly.
"Could you please take a look at this draft Jordan Ward (musician)? It was previously declined due to some promotional language, which has since been removed. The writing has been revised, and I'd appreciate it if you could review the draft again."
Hi @Afrowriter, I'm not Star Mississippi but what I will say is your draft is no more important than the other 2,500 other drafts that are waiting for review. You resubmitted it a couple weeks ago and as the submission notice states it may take up to four months so be patient. S0091 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Major mea culpa. Thanks so much for flagging @Spicy and I'm not even sure what happened. Will also leave a longer note on their Talk. Thanks and apologies again. StarMississippi19:59, 25 August 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Star Mississippi, I noticed that you are a member of WP:Theatre and have worked on several art museum articles. I would appreciate your opinion on the article draft that I created for Carl Thoma, an art collector and businessman. Because of my COI, I do not want to publish the article myself; if you agree that it has potential, would you mind helping to have it ready for main space? Thank you very much! JBarTB (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Question: can an article at AfD be moved back to draft by the creator while the AfD is still active? This happened at this AfD for Prue Bishop Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prue Bishop before it was closed. See here: Draft:Prue Bishop. I tried reverting it by undoing the move that was made, but it did not change it back to the original main space title, so I don't think I did the process correctly. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
All taken care of now. I'm curious, tho, if I run into this situation again in the future, what is the best way to resolve it. In this case, simply undoing the move did not change the name of the article, nor remove the error template. What is the proper procedure...doing a second move back to main space? Netherzone (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for again being MIA.
I ran into this issue this weekend when the LTA AusLondoner referenced above was moving things all over. I think the correct sequence is for you to tag the mainspace redirect for G6 and when an admin sees it, then move the draft back. When you tag it, there's a way to signal to the admin that there's a page needing moved and we can do it simultaneously. I see that in AfC but not sure if it would work here (@DoubleGrazing, @Timtrent do you know?) BUt you're correct, it shouldn't have been moved even if it's a tacit acceptance of I acknowledge it's not ready. I wish there were a way to move protect all discussions at AfD because really there's no reason for anyone to move an article while it's at AfD. Is that helpful? StarMississippi01:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm certainly no expert, but AFAIK that special flavour of G6, {{Db-afc-move}}, is only for AfC acceptances, and won't even come up in Twinkle's CSD dialog box outside the Draft: space. But another G6, {{Db-move}}, should be okay; likewise, {{Db-r2}}. Whichever variant you (us mere mortals, that is) use, involves a wait for one of our lovely admins to come along to do the deed, so it's not like one Db works quicker or smoother than the others.
@Netherzone: I don't think I've ever managed to successfully undo a move (by clicking 'undo' as one would with a normal edit, that is), either, so I don't even try that any more. I don't know if it's not even meant to work, or I'm just not doing it right. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks everyone! I'll make a note of this if it's encountered in the future. And especially thanks because the question heading is written in word salad, and it was still understood, and you kind folks answered anyways. In the future, I will try to remember to proofread! Ha ha! Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Star Mississippi,
Please consider changing Superblue (art gallery) title to "Superblue (Art)."
From vocabulary research, I've found galleries are within installations at an art company. The primary distinction from galleries to art companies is the selling of art pieces - Galleries must sell art pieces to be considered as such.
Superblue rotates installations featuring galleries displaying themed art pieces from the artists. They also do not sell the art they display.
The correct categorization here would either best fit under "Art" or "Art Company," not gallery.
Hi @Swampcowboy. I'm not sure your distinction applies here or in general. Galleries can sell, but don't always. For example China Institute or the National Gallery of Art. Please allow the discussion you opened on the Talk page to reach a consensus. I'll leave a pointer to this discussion therem but all discussions about articles should take place on the talk page. StarMississippi18:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Star, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksi Ojala. I was wondering if you could hear me out to change the closing comment from no consensus to keep? The reason is that there were no strong delete views (only two "weak delete") ever since @Ljleppan found the highest quality sources. On the other hand there were 3 keep views (plus one weak keep) in that time. I think the closing comment might be important to establish precedent should someone nominate the article again. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Habst. Thanks for flagging. I'm happy to review and reasses if my POV changes and/or fleshing out close, but I can't look at this for a couple of hours as I'm about to go offline. If you prefer sooner resolution, I have no objection to DRV. Let me know your thoughts and happy to proceed however you wish. StarMississippi14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! I've re-reviewed this and unfortunately I still land with a N/C. As I said before, I'll support a DRV if you think I've closed this wrong but can't see another outcome. Let me know your thoughts? StarMississippi21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Star, thanks for reviewing. I am new to DRV so not sure if I can articulate a case there well, and ultimately it seems like a long process that will admittedly have no material effect except for precedent in this case. I'll let you know if my opinion changes or I have more time, though. --Habst (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please do let me know if you change your mind. Happy to weigh in there.
I think what will help with precedent is getting the interview issue settled. It has come up more and more often and I think it's unsettled. My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there. This is different of course to John Q Public being interviewed as a witness, bystander, etc. Athletes fall somewhere in the middle. Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive?. Until that's solved, it's messy StarMississippi23:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello Star, Can you help this editor in a proper AFD on my article Ada-George Road which was accepted. I have given him some word of advice on his talk page but I see he has taken Wikipedia as a war zone. All I see is frustration about his article but I believe with time he or she will understand because I was once there years ago but not in the sense of fighting back by nominating there article. Like I mean those years I argue with people who seem to be right instead of learning from them. Not anymore. Gabriel(……?)16:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Gabriel601. I see you left them a note on their Talk. If that doesn't move forward productively, you might want to bring more eyes to the situation. I unfortunately do not have the on wiki time to moderate this, which was why I wasn't able to participate in the ANI. Pinging @Timtrent who participated in the AfD so there's no canvas issue for their thoughts. StarMississippi21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I haven't even assessed the article I'm afraid. I just can't see a deletion rationale, nor a policy based argument to delete. I think it needs a procedural close with no action taken. I almost did a non admin closure on it saying so, but felt other eyes were required. Thank you for the ping Star Mississippi. I wonder if Reading Beans has a comment on the AfD itself as presented, ignoring the fact that they accepted the AfC draft.
Thanks for your insight, as always, @Timtrent. I think it's a tit for tat, but unaware of background between Cfaso2000 and @Gabriel601 prior to the last couple of weeks. I see a poor nom but not a SK one like the editor at ANI I was cleaning up after.But no objection to someone else doing so as that's opinion not rule. StarMississippi02:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the ping Timtrent. FWIW, I think that the nomination was made in bad faith and should be closed SK. Having accepted the article, I think that would make me involved, otherwise I’d have close it myself with my prejudice to a renomination. I honestly think that the background between Cfaso2000 and Gabriel are now generating more heat than light at this time. Best, Reading Beans04:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Closed, as a procedural speedy keep, with no prejudice against an immediate nomination with a policy based rationale. Probably, this is an IAR closure. Obviously this is a non admin closure.
@Star Mississippi I think that satisfies your "poor nom but not a SK one"
@Reading Beans I think I am not involved because I have simply repeated my comment there (and expanded it a little), and I think that satisfies your "should be closed SK"
When you have the opportunity I wondered if you might take a look at a couple of COIN threads and take any action you think may be necessary. Alternatively, if no action is necessary I’d genuinely be very grateful for input on that. There's no particular hurry incidentally, just whenever you should have the time…
Thread 1: [1]. User EastThermopolis is either involved in UPE or they are some kind of dyed-in-the-wool promo editor. Perhaps 12 or more editors have found issue with their larger edits over a long period of time (for details see thread), but they have a sideline in large numbers of very similar minor edits which obscure the broader pattern on their contribution history. Their larger edits are almost always reverted, part deleted, or brought to COIN, etc.
Also, user Lullaby09! is an obvious in-house UPE account.
Thread 2: [2]. This thread relates to the widespread COI editing of Indian Army unit articles that came to light at ANI earlier this year. The three accounts originally raised in this thread were blocked. I located a further 10, but there seems to have been no appetite to dispense the same sanctions.
All good @Johannes Maximilian as I knew it was thin, which is why I put it through AfC vs. creating it. It's closed so this will die a G13 unless I G7 it. Haven't decided if I'll look for better sourcing. While I disagree with your perception of OR, that's neither here nor there. I'd suggest you not use the phrase call a spade in AFC review as it can be unintentionally offensive. StarMississippi01:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good morning! I don't mean to be offensive; maybe, the WP:♠ essay needs amending? Honestly, I hope you don't interpret this as me putting forward allegations, but please understand that – as I have described in last night's comment – that making a conclusion such as "Alibi's is the city's most diverse neighborhood bar", which is not stated by the cited source, but instead based on an analysis of that source, is included in the definition of WP:OR. I also found it very important to demonstrate how that OR works – the source describes the city's residents as diverse, it doesn't make that claim about the bar; by interpreting the source and presuming that, if the residents are diverse, and if they go the bar, the bar must become diverse too, the OR is made. However, the bar doesn't inherit the "diversity property" from its guests. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know you didn't and don't want to know, which is why I flagged it @Johannes Maximilian. Your English is 1000% better than any of my second languages, but changing language and idioms are tricky even in one's native language. And yes, the essay probably also needs updating so others don't fall into that issue unknowingly.
I totally respect your decision to decline and am not second guessing that. At one point I wanted to create articles for the Lesbian Bar Project but independent of this assessment, I realized it wasn't going to be possible for all of them to meet N:ORG. As it's unlikely a closed bar will generate more coverage, this one will fall off and that's absolutely fine.
It may be subjective since it's quoting the owner but the source in its own voice says "Alibis, in Oklahoma City, calls itself “OKC’s most diverse neighborhood bar.” (Angela Jones)" That's what doesn't make it OR or my interpretation of the source. That's where I disagree on your assessment as OR. But all editors-especially both of us who have seen lots of drafts over our tenures, will disagree and that's OK. I know it's not the sole or even primary reason you declined. StarMississippi17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for understanding! I know, it can be difficult when you realise that the subject or topic you want to write an article about isn't well covered by any good sources. That experience can be quite frustrating; I've been there before. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey Star Mississippi, sorry to bother, but would you mind taking a look at this user's behavior pertaining to Darnell Edge and its talk page? The user has been paid by the article subject and initially wrote about 90% of the article. After they were asked about COI, they declared the paid status, and have since been instructed to not directly make sourcing or content changes, yet completely ignored that with a major content addition in the face of talk page objections about the sourcing. They seem to be bypassing consensus and proper editorial process. I'm thinking a page block from the article may be necessary as a minimum stopgap measure. Any assistance would help, thanks. Left guide (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello. There seems to be a misunderstanding and I apologize for the trouble. I am completely new to the Wikipedia content creation process as this is my first time creating one. I’m really proud of the work I’ve done on this page but have struggled to comply with the various requirements as it is a bit confusing. I did initially request changes prior to including them back on the page, but I thought if I just updated the sources then it would be okay. But I apologize for The misunderstanding and mistakes. Will I still be able to request information be at least added to the page, and another admin will have to input them if approved? Will I be blocked forever? And will I be able to create other wiki pages in the future now that I know all of the different requirements and regulations? Thank you in advance for your help. InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @InfinitiBowie97. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but you'll have to show a good history of your edit requests meeting all policies and guidelines before someone will consider allowing you access to edit directly. While you have made the disclosures (thank you!), it's good practice not to edit an article where you have a WP:COI directly even if you're allowed. Article creation is hard. I recommend making edits to learn more about the project before you decide to start trying to write more articles. You are only blocked from that one article, so you're allowed to edit anywhere else. Just be mindful of what you've learned so far. StarMississippi00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the insight @Star Mississippi! Okay understood. As I did disclose that I am a paid editor for this page and its creation, it is important that I can still add new information. So if I am to remain blocked on the page for direct edit access, should I continue to request through you and the talk page? InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's specific to A/MFDs. Something with the header. I'll flag it for @Novem Linguae if I can reproduce it because right now we're firmly in I broke something again but can't explain it territory. Thanks for flagging & fixing @Left guideStarMississippi01:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I read that as something @Piotrus would have been OK with, not that they preferred it which is why I didn't close it as such. But since we're treating this as a contested PROD, I've done so. If someone feels it's not a good solution it can be sorted out down the line at RfD. Thanks for flagging @GhostOfDanGurneyStarMississippi00:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You closed this discussion as delete, but it doesn't look like you deleted any of the pages.
If you were using a script to close this nomination, it's possible that it got confused by the "and subpages" links I included in the list of nominated pages. When you do close this nomination, please make sure that those subpages are all deleted as well. Omphalographer (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You know what I mean, but since you'd like me to clarify: WP:DTTR. Voters disagree, that doesn't mean they're doing it wrong or need to be told about ATA. It comes across really disingenuous, which I know you don't mean. StarMississippi22:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply but I REALLY do not know what you mean and honestly, I am not pleased by the fact that you assert that I do. Why would I waste my time asking you, if I did understand?.ATA? Mentioning ATA, is that it???? PLEASE..... look at the page history...who mentioned ATA in the first place? Not me..... I don't mind, and it was certainly done in good faith, I am sure, but I think I should at least be allowed to comment. I am really puzzled by your comment, to tell you the truth. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
AND DTTR? I had missed that part. I did not template any regular. Where? When? Who?.... What are you talking about? I never template anyone, even the most blatantly vandal IPs!! Are you sure you are talking about me at that AFD? There must be some misunderstanding or something I missed because I have no idea of what you're talking about. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You said, The essay WP:ATA is indeed rather interesting to read...Can also apply to certain delete !votes, btw,
Comes across as expecting editors aren't familiar with it, when we all (including you) are veterans. It's the same logic as DTTR. You don't mean it, but it's how it comes across. This is not about whether the article is kept or not, it's far too early to tell, but I don't think you want to come across talking to other editors that way. StarMississippi02:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for clarifying but again .....I am just commenting on what is obviously a comment on my vote, citing ATA (and erroneously, on top of that); that is why I felt I had to explain what ATA says and not. Indeed, I am seriously just indicating that ATA does not apply to "WP:XXX because YYY"-type !votes but only to "WP:XXX"-type !votes! Why did I do it? Because that is what is clearly stated by another user (who happens to !vote in a "WP:XXX'-fashion on top of it, in their !vote, which is ironic). Now, if you prefer explaining that yourself as admin/relister (as nominator, in fact), feel free to strike out that comment of mine and make the clarification about what the essay really says yourself, the way you think best, if you think that's more appropriate. I honestly won't mind. But I still don't understand why you focus on my mention on ATA. When I quote essays (I rarely quote essays) or guidelines erroneously, if someone corrects me, I stand corrected. Thank you all the same. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)07:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to strike it, even if I weren't nominator. I understand what you're saying here, but that's not how it comes across which is telling us to read ATA. I know that's not what you want to do, which is why I flagged it. StarMississippi02:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I started a draft on this fellow a while back and would be happy to have some help with it. (Also posted this on Mississippi Wikiproject talk page). I hipe all is well. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, a quick Q regarding your closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flirtini (app). My understanding was that a speedy deletion could happen at any time at an admin's discretion if the situation meets one of the criteria. Your comment about mootness made me wonder whether I am correct. Is "speedy delete" disallowed as an option in a relisted AfD? Thanks for clarifying! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! My understanding with AfD, which may well be wrong, is that speedy is the OK to close it in fewer than the initial 7 days because while it wasn't CSDed, it meets one of the criteria or it's snowing. Since an AfD can be closed at any time following the relist, we don't need the speedy. Your !vote and BD2412's gave the consensus that the outcome was delete. There was nothing wrong with your note-it's not not disallowed but not necessary, if that makes sense? While I have you, thanks for weighing in on all those arena event AfDs so we could have some consensus instead of another silent relist. StarMississippi13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Star Mississippi, I'm super confused about the "no consensus" decision. 4 policy-based keeps, and the nominator's concern was addressed... There was no one, including the nominator, claiming that the subject is not notable. Source analysis showed 2 strong GNG compliant sources. And a super detailed analysis showing that NACTOR is satisfied. How come it is not closed as keep? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker and thanks for your note. I also weighed @Oaktree b & @GMH Melbourne (no action needed, courtesy ping on mention)'s input as weighing in on sourcing but not strongly enough to advocate for a keep (nor argue foe deletion) which is how I landed on NC. I've re-read my close and assessment and I don't see a keep here. It's a distinction without a difference given the outcome is for retention of the article, but if you believe I'm wrong I have no objection to a DRV being filed. About to step offline for a few hours so pardon any delay in response. StarMississippi19:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @ToBeFree @Netherzone. NZ, your timing is impeccable. I was just talking with a friend about our trip to Fushimi Inari which was somehow probably 20 years ago (might have been '06). I got tired of whack a sock, and the poor goats were getting tired. Have a good evening both of you. StarMississippi01:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
One of my most favorite places in the whole world! Be well, and don't let the socks get under your skin - toss em into the machine that loses socks. Have a wonderful weekend to the both of you. Netherzone (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is one of the most incredible sacred sites I've ever seen! And I can't believe you also mentioned Miyajima...remember all those little crabs crawling around at low tide at Itsukushima Shrine! I have some good friends who are currently visiting Japan for the first time, and I mentioned to them that they must go to Fushimi Inari, Miyajima, and Nara. I absolutely loved Nara, spent a whole week there - the Shinto Shrine Kasuga-taisha, the botanical gardens, the Todai-ji Buddhist temple, all the friendly sacred deer all over the city, that huge park, and the road up the hill (can't remember the name, something like the road of 10,000 lanterns.)
I have three colleagues going to Japan this month and I'm so jealous (in a benign, not mean way) of them because there is nothing like autumn in Japan. The road to Omiwa Shrine @Netherzone? Such solace. Loved Misen-san in Miyajima. I found it necessary after the pain that was Hiroshima.
@ToBeFree you should. The flight is long so plan a month if you can. Two weeks at a minimum unless you're doing one city. It's a nation of huge contrasts from the bustling built up cities to the quiet of the towns and even more rural areas. Even within the contrast of Nagoya and the Fuji Go Ko region just an hour from Tokyo. StarMississippi22:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! I'll make a note in the close, but the merger destination is actually an editorial one and not admin. @DoctorWhoFan91 I'd suggest that you, @Cunard and any other interested editors discuss on which you think is the best fit. Let me know if that's helpful? StarMississippi13:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I wondered if I could draw your attention to the following brief thread at WP:COIN, [3]. The user is a spam only account recently blocked on German Wikipedia who has transferred their activities to English Wikipedia. I think there is probably a strong case for a site block. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you have the time it may also be worth looking at this brief thread on a separate subject, started by user:Fram. It's about another user engaged solely in promotion and ignoring multiple warnings. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
