User talk:Star Mississippi

Star Mississippi is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is Star Mississippi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 45 days

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
136		Council of Women World Leaders (talk)	Add sources
102		Lectionary (talk)	Add sources
582		Mishnah (talk)	Add sources
160		Psalter (talk)	Add sources
184		Hatzalah (talk)	Add sources
231		Lounge music (talk)	Add sources
257		Matrix (protocol) (talk)	Cleanup
569		Pastebin (talk)	Cleanup
31		Kalyana Parisu (TV series) (talk)	Cleanup
8,935		Morocco (talk)	Expand
73		Gospel Book (talk)	Expand
24		Raghogarh-Vijaypur (talk)	Expand
89		Prince Jaime, Duke of Noto (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
100		Tamil television drama (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
26		MSN Chat (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
137		Freddie Scappaticci (talk)	Merge
1,572		Open-source software (talk)	Merge
13		Fritz Bélizaire (talk)	Merge
29		European Academy of Sciences and Arts (talk)	Wikify
5		Valli Thirumanam (talk)	Wikify
265		Threema (talk)	Wikify
2		Preston Wadley (talk)	Orphan
1		Shahar Marcus (talk)	Orphan
2		Flyaow (talk)	Orphan
177		Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen (talk)	Stub
33		Miroslav Gospel (talk)	Stub
7		Irish Gospels of St. Gall (talk)	Stub
7		Anbandidi Gospel (talk)	Stub
6		The Slide (talk)	Stub
4		1983 Tulsa Golden Hurricane football team (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Is it just me, or has ANI semi-recently become almost a pure Vote for Banning? It's always been bad, but now it feels insufferably mean-spirited and full of drive-by hatred. Has it always been this way? One admittedly very anti-Wikipedian thing I wish we could try: no drive-by comments from anyone who has been here less than, say, 2 years. They're welcome to start threads or comment on threads that affect them, but no kibitzing. I hope your talk page is backwater enough that I can say this without getting in trouble. Anyway, mostly just saying thanks for the agreement, and saying hi. Used to run into you more when Keeper was around, haven't said anything to you I think in years. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]