User talk:Star Mississippi: Difference between revisions

 

Line 527: Line 527:

:Thanks @[[User:Assadzadeh|Assadzadeh]]

:Thanks @[[User:Assadzadeh|Assadzadeh]]

:I’ll respond there to keep it central [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#be33ff;”>Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#ff33da;”>Mississippi</span>]] 19:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

:I’ll respond there to keep it central [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#be33ff;”>Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style=”color:#ff33da;”>Mississippi</span>]] 19:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

== Question regarding DRV for [[Kerkula Blama]] ==

Hello @[[User:Star Mississippi|Star Mississippi]],

I am writing to you regarding the ongoing Deletion Review for the article [[Kerkula Blama]], in which you seem to be the reviewing administrator. Thank you so much for your work on this.

I would like to respectfully provide some context for your final consideration, focusing on the article’s content now that it has been temporarily restored.

My primary contention is that the article meets the threshold of [[WP:GNG|General Notability]]. It is supported by multiple independent, reliable sources, such as [[FrontPage Africa]], [[News Ghana]] and [[Liberian Observer]] which have published significant, non-trivial coverage about the subject’s career and recognition. This coverage constitutes the basis for notability.

As noted in the DRV, a prior article for his organization was redirected precisely because the sources focused on his individual notability, which is the foundation of this article.

I understand the DRV’s role is to examine the closing judgment. However, I believe the restored content provides a verifiable basis for retention. Could you please share your perspective on whether the coverage from these sources meets the significant coverage requirement of GNG?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[[User:MichaelMorris96|MichaelMorris96]] ([[User talk:MichaelMorris96|talk]]) 06:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Hi StarMississippi,
Hope you’ve been doing well. I wanted to ask a quick procedural question about Draft:Sanket_Goel. I’ve been working on improving it through the COI edit request process (with input from neutral editors), and it’s now been resubmitted for review.

Since it’s been waiting for some time, I just wanted to understand whether there’s anything I should do from my side such as adding tags or if it’s best to simply wait for a reviewer to pick it up.
I’m not asking for a direct review, just hoping to make sure I’m following the right process. I really appreciate your time and any general advice you can offer. Thanks! Shashy 922 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shashy 922

I just had a quick look and I don’t think there’s anything further you need to do. I’ll try to look in greater depth this weekend. You’ve provided some great information and it looks like the other editors have incorporated it. There’s about a two month wait in AfC right now, so it’s probably just that. If there are tags that you think should be added that would help a reviewer understand Goel’s work, you can mention them on the Talk in or out of an edit request. Star Mississippi 03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Star Mississippi.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thank you for your reply. The Sanket Goel draft was recently reviewed again and declined for “insufficient reliable sources.” This surprised me a little since you and other editors have previously mentioned that the sourcing looked fine and that there wasn’t anything further I needed to do at that point.

I’m not questioning the reviewer’s judgment, I know AfC can vary depending on who handles it, but I’m genuinely trying to understand what may still be missing so I can address it properly. If you have any thoughts on what specific improvements could help bring the draft in line with AfC expectations, I’d really appreciate your guidance.

If reviewing it again isn’t feasible for you right now, no worries at all. Even a brief pointer on what direction to take would help me avoid repeating mistakes.

Thank you again for your time and for all the past help. Shashy 922 (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shashy 922

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well.

I don’t have the time to look into the details at the moment but if you haven’t already, I’d recommend checking in with @SafariScribe to see if they have any details to share. There may be something specific they were looking for that they didn’t see. Please do ping me if I don’t come back to you after December 9 after which I anticipate more on wiki time. Star Mississippi 03:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SM for getting this to my notice. Indeed the editor was right and I may have mistaken something while reviewing the draft. I have gone ahead and accepted it. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SafariScribe

@Shashy 922 don’t hesitate to let either of us know if you have further questions. If I’m not as responsive as I should be due to offline priorities, the Help Desk and Teahouse are great resources. Star Mississippi 15:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you close this as delete? The fact that there was a controversy regarding the temple is enough to make it notable. Delete !voters didn’t dispute the sources, they just asserted that there should be no page. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning @Kelob2678. In my read, consensus was clear there that there wasn’t enough to support a page. If you’d like me to relist it, I will. I do not see any other potential close at this stage. Star Mississippi 13:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please relist, thank you. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Kelob2678 Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably could have just been nuked as G11, it’s just spam. —Seawolf35 ^T—C 03:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got in the weeds looking for the source to G12 that I forgot the more obvious. Thanks @Seawolf35 Star Mississippi 03:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and it’s back. cc @Deb who sorted it last time. I’ve tagged and this time blocked the editor because they’re clearly not here for any other purpose. Star Mississippi 17:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salted. Deb (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While working on Nasrat Khalid, I learned that you previously moved the first attempt to draft in 2023, and it was eventually deleted. I cannot view the deleted version, but if you can, I’d appreciate a quick check to see whether this new draft is an improvement and ready to stand. Thank you. Bagwe Neza (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bagwe Neza

Your new version is much improved, thank you. I’ve restored the prior edits (courtesy heads up, @Explicit) as the kind of deletion was simply because no one was actively editing it, not that the content was an issue. While I’m not positive the article would be kept at an AfD, you’ve certainly addressed the issues sufficiently that a G4 wouldn’t be a concern. You’re welcome to move it to mainspace. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Star Mississippi 15:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’ll reach out if I need any further help. Bagwe Neza (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! We don’t intersect very often, so I hope you’ll recall and understand my thanks for your thanks on a diff of mine. What I saw was just a very odd and dramatic occurrence; one of a kind in my 20 years here. It’s even odder (but wonderful) that anyone else noticed. Thank you. I look forward to working beside you in the future, whether I know it or not. JFHJr (㊟) 22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. I’ll be honest, I don’t recall exactly how I saw it, but it was part of an odd pattern by that editor. Your response was perfect. Should you run into any issues, don’t hesitate to ping me. Likewise look forward to working with you. Star Mississippi 03:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Star Mississippi. Thank you for your close at AN/I. Just wanted to let you know about this. If it suddenly resumes activity, we will know who it is. 11WB (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the heads up @11WB. Apparently today isn’t Sunday so much a Sock day. Star Mississippi 03:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It suddenly resumed activity. I’ve issued CU blocks for the alternative accounts. Izno (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! Well… they did only have a partial block, this means they are now a sock. I don’t know how this affects their chances of ever being able to return to regular editing in the future… 11WB (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Izno @11WB and apologies for the delay, I’ve been offline. If my initial block still needs adjusting, please feel free to do on my behalf. Editors playing dumb about the account/person block situation make me shake my head somehow still all these years later. Star Mississippi 12:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, I saw your note to UFG. Flagging this conversation as well. Unfortunately I haven’t had the on wiki time to fully follow the whole situation but wanted to be sure you were aware. Star Mississippi 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is some high level incompetency. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Arishfa Khan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 07:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for blocking TERFMama, it was fraying the edges of my mind that a user with a name like this existed on wikipedia 🙂 ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome 97-01.

Thankfully the name drew moths to the flame of their edits, which were also an issue. Star Mississippi 02:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve been trying to support R2025kt after you blocked them from article creation, but I’m worried that we’ve got a case of a very enthusiastic editor who can’t get past CIR hurdles.

I’ve asked them to get a mentor twice because they’re swallowing up time at AFC. Beyond this, I genuinely don’t know what else I can do to help them.

Would you mind taking a moment to look at their Talk and see what you think? Are we getting anywhere or is this going to be a persistent issue? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your efforts to help them as well as Orlando @Blue-Sonnet but I believe your generosity is being taken advantage of here. (cc @Theroadislong)

I’m not sure whether it’s competence or trolling, or whether it matters. The draft should be rejected at this stage. I’d hoped that a mainspace block would be sufficient but it’s not if their disruption has moved to AfC. I’ll leave a note on their Talk as a final warning. Star Mississippi 18:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping it wouldn’t come to this, but the problem is unwillingness to move on after the partial block. Allowing them to work on BLP drafts is how they got into the problem in the first place. We need a topic ban on BLPs altogether. Even then, they’re all kinds of CIR problems. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, they really need to build up their fundamentals before creating full articles, but the posts when I suggest that are the few that don’t get any response… Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you! I try to err on the side of AGF but that means there will be be cases where it’s not going to change anything – I had a feeling this was one of those times, so I should stop and check with someone more experienced.

Thanks again! Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your willingness to help is admirable @Blue-Sonnet. PLease do continue as there are situations when it can very much help, but there is some fundamental IDHT in season right now

@BusterD I sadly agree with you re: further guardrails. My on wiki time is sporadic due to major work event, so I won’t be able to monitor and be available to discuss a new ANI discussion, but would support a topic ban. My concern is User_talk:R2025kt#What_is_a_BLP and theid discussion with @Bonadea where they were being willfully clueless about what makes something a BLP and I’d be 0% surprised if they continued down that vein with a topic ban.. Star Mississippi 18:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve told them I’m going to stop giving advice on BLP’s and suggested something simpler – I’ve got them watchlisted to see how they respond. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star & @BusterD, I linked the instructions to edit requests twice, gave instructions and told them which template to use, yet they’ve not even been able to do that correctly.

I think we might have reached the end of the road with this editor. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve indeffed them for continuing to involve themselves in BLP articles after all this warning and a partial block. It’s time to end this. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Blue-Sonnet @BusterD for handling while I was offline. Their inability to listen is what got them blcoked and I recommended their appeal be declined. My on wiki time is still somewhat limited but will try to keep an eye out. Star Mississippi 17:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did too – it’s weird because I usually try to coach people through a successful block appeal, but this should absolutely be declined.

I desperately want to believe it’s CIR and not intentional, but going straight back to BLP’s after I’d told them not to on multiple occasions has me questioning myself…

I also didn’t realise I’d spent the last five days on this! If it is a troll, they’re pretty dedicated. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I “reverted” your redirect close by adding three sources – which were previously identified and available – to the article, which I think is compatible with your close. Just wanted to give you a heads up! SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine @SportingFlyer, and is why I specified “when” in the close. I wasn’t able to find the other AfD you referenced in your comment at Apertura AfD. Probably search error but if you think of it in the future, can you try to link when you’re cross referencing? Makes life easier for closer and participants.

Thanks for the heads up Star Mississippi 18:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were directly next to each other in the deletion sorting, essentially on the exact same topic, and I was frustrated. I’m sure as a closer you probably didn’t see them in order as such! SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

separation probably also a function of the relist on this one. No worries, just saves us all a step when possible, which it isn’t always. I forgot to ping in my note on the close, but amended closing note in lieu of reclosing. It reflects this discussion. Star Mississippi 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Polly Gordon Walk, Carl Schurz Park, Upper East Side.jpg.

This file is a derivative work, containing an “image within an image”. Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the file description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 03:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Iruka13

I G7ed it as it’s clear from this info that it’s probably under copyright. I wasn’t as well versed in images then. If there are other processes, feel free to end and link to this discussion Star Mississippi 03:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @CommunityNotesContributor

it’s never an easy decision but sometimes it’s one that needs to be made. Star Mississippi 18:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yousuf31 was banned by you and started sockpuppeting. I recently noticed this account named @OmaniCoder popping up and I notice they are pretty similar to that previous editor with similar edits to Omani articles and having the same behavior. I am still not 100 percent sure though. Since you had blocked @Yousuf31 in the past, I might ask you if you think they are potentially a sockpuppet. Zaptain United (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zaptain United

I don’t see a lot here but probably worth noting at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yousuf31 if you have time to file. Also pinging @Blablubbs and @Nfutvol who found the last sock. Star Mississippi 01:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be…account was created about a month after the other was blocked, seems to have a similar pattern with editing aircraft crashes, and also appears to have a similarly confounding misunderstanding of verifiability and notability. Would also recommend requesting an SPI here. nf utvol (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you check old archives of Yousuf31, you can see that he said he was a programmer and this account is called Omani Coder. Another interesting thing is that they have a similar format when nominating AFDs. They both mention they are nominating the article for deletion on the talk page. Check JetBlue Flight 292 and Avient Aviation Flight 324. Zaptain United (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a bunch of coincidences, but I just find it just interesting. Zaptain United (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 — Seems to pass the duck test. Both use similarly worded rationale for deletion discussions (Diff and Diff), both create articles on dubiously notable aviation accidents (Diff and Diff), both are generally focused on Omani aviation, both seemingly have a difficult time understanding the point (see their talk pages), and on the commons, they upload copyvio images (see talk page and this inappropriately licensed file). RandomInfinity17 (talk – contributions) 02:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing some more of their edits, I took the liberty to go ahead and request SPI with a CheckUser. Feel free to add any more evidence. nf utvol (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nfutvol

@Zaptain United one thing for future reports, the puppeter/master/puppeteer is the first account so in this case Yousuf. You’re telling Omani that you believe they’re a sockpuppet. It’s not an issue, but just so that you know down the line. Star Mississippi 02:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I understand. By the way, if they are blocked for being a sockpuppet, will this AFD still continue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avient_Aviation_Flight_324 Zaptain United (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether other established editors participate by the time a CU sees the report and actions it @Zaptain United. It could be closed as DE, or allowed to run. Star Mississippi 02:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up some of their mess. Thanks for flagging and reporting @Nfutvol @RandomInfinity17 @Zaptain United Star Mississippi 03:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting/blocking that. You might also want to take a look at the IPV6 /64 range as there have been other temporary account(s) socking similar articles going back to mid-November, e.g. ~2025-38349-63 10mmsocket (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @10mmsocket

It looks like other editors got to the cleanup first, but I just blocked. I’ve watchlisted a couple of the targets and hope we can spot them sooner next time. (Thanks again @Zaptain United for catching the latest named account. Star Mississippi 16:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit puzzled by this edit of yours, closing a question on the reference desk. Sometimes an OP, being satisfied, adds “ Resolved“, but this need not stop others from providing further insights. My first thought was that you had determined that the OP was a sockpupprt of a banned or block-evading user, but I see no signs of that. So I don’t get the point of this closure. Note further that the template {{abot}} adds the text “Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page“, but there is no “appropriate” discussion page for specific reference desk questions.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the OP has been blocked; sorry.  ​‑‑Lambiam 22:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Lambiam

Their edits, which would have made it clear why they were in issue have been deleted. they were using editors time to build their edit count before outing themselves as a sock/troll. If there’s a better template, feel free to amend my close. Star Mississippi 00:23, 14 December 2025 (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.

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) 07:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to the conclusion that the above-mentioned article should be merged with 2026 FIFA World Cup, when there were just as many arguments to keep it as is? Assadzadeh (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning @Assadzadeh

The number of arguments is not the deciding factor, it’s those with policies and guidelines. FIFA and Trump being notable does not provide notability to the award, and that argument had clear consensus. If you disagree, you’re welcome to open a deletion review as I have reread it and don’t see any other way I could have closed it. Thanks! Star Mississippi 13:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FIFA Peace Prize. 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. Assadzadeh (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Assadzadeh

I’ll respond there to keep it central Star Mississippi 19:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Star Mississippi,

I am writing to you regarding the ongoing Deletion Review for the article Kerkula Blama, in which you seem to be the reviewing administrator. Thank you so much for your work on this.

I would like to respectfully provide some context for your final consideration, focusing on the article’s content now that it has been temporarily restored.

My primary contention is that the article meets the threshold of General Notability. It is supported by multiple independent, reliable sources, such as FrontPage Africa, News Ghana and Liberian Observer which have published significant, non-trivial coverage about the subject’s career and recognition. This coverage constitutes the basis for notability.

As noted in the DRV, a prior article for his organization was redirected precisely because the sources focused on his individual notability, which is the foundation of this article.

I understand the DRV’s role is to examine the closing judgment. However, I believe the restored content provides a verifiable basis for retention. Could you please share your perspective on whether the coverage from these sources meets the significant coverage requirement of GNG?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

MichaelMorris96 (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]