User talk:GSS/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Jennifer_Uchendu

Hi GSS you recently deleted Jennifer_Uchendu which is a new article about a woman who is notable and well linked and article had been worked on by several editors. There was an article of the same name that was deleted with a valid reason and this may have confused you. I don't understand your deletion ... can you review or supply a rationale please. Speedy deletion seems to lack justification. Victuallers (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Victuallers: (1) GSS did not delete the article: Deb did. (2) You attempted to restore the deleted article unilaterally, without first consulting the deleting administrator; do you think that is good practice? (3) You actually restored only the latest revision. (4) I'm not sure why you say "this may have confused you". As an administrator with as much experience as you must know, there's a wide range of good faith and rational views as to how similar a new version of a page needs to be to a deleted version to qualify for a G4 deletion, and even if you personally tend towards the "must be absolutely identical" end of the spectrum, the similarity in this case is well within the range of variation of views about this. (5) Even if we set aside the G4 issue completely, the other reason given for deletion was that the article was promotional. Again, it is not at the blatant spam end of the spectrum, but there is certainly a very clear promotional tone to it, and some statements in it are far from neutral; for example, consider "Her work highlights the importance..." That both advocates a view as to what is important and also expresses the view that Jennifer Uchendu "highlights" that matter which is viewed as important. (6) You state as a fact that Jennifer Uchendu is "a woman who is notable". That is contrary to a 100% consensus in a deletion discussion. Of course you are free to disagree with that consensus, but using your personal opinion, contrary to consensus, as a justification for unilaterally reverting an administrative action is questionable. (7) You also say "article had been worked on by several editors". The number of people who have edited an article has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it should be deleted, and I am bewildered as to why you mention that.

Would you be prepared to revert your own undeletion, wait to hear the deleting administrator's view on the matter, and then if you are unsatisfied, consider whether to take the deletion to Wikipedia:Deletion review? JBW (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Detective Barnstar

		The Detective Barnstar
		During your routine edits on Wikipedia you noticed the odd behaviour of an editor and went on to investigate further with good faith. Upon your preliminary investigation you started a watertight SPI case against those editor(s), which led to their blocking and reduction of vandalism, gaming the system, and paid editing, etc on Wikipedia. Your SPI case is a beacon of diligence and eye for detail on Wikipedia. For the above, I am pleased to confer upon you the The Detective Barnstar under my signature on this date and time. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation! GSS ^💬 04:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding articles I created

I do not know what your problem is? You said I have sockpupet ... you were found wrong. You said I lack skill and you changed your mind by yourself. You reported me to Administrators , you rather get warned. And now you proposed my articles for deletion. I think time is coming to get your rights be taken. The Kazanchis (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh really? The SPI has not yet closed, and the evidence I provided is sufficient to establish meat puppetry. The articles you created lack sufficient evidence of notability, which is why they were proposed for deletion. If you contest the proposed deletion, they will be listed for AfD. GSS ^💬 12:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems you may have COI in getting these pages removed. If you think these pages lack sufficient evidence to support their notability you can include them for deletion discussion and we will show our points there. The Kazanchis (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait a second, who is 'we'? Wikipedia accounts should be used by a single person only and should never be shared or used by a group. GSS ^💬 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please learn English very well! We show our points means (You and Me). You see how biased person you are, Amazing! The Kazanchis (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow! thank you for the clarification. Sure "we'll" do. GSS ^💬 12:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You welcome! The Kazanchis (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

This did not meet either WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11. Please familiarise yourself with the criteria for speedy deletion before making speedy deletion nominations. —Kusma (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, see WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Do not draftify articles more than once. You have been told this just a few weeks ago. As a holder of various advanced permissions, you need to follow Wikipedia policy. As a new page patroller, you need to follow Wikipedia:New pages patrol which clearly states you should not draftify pages more than once. You need to follow these policies or risk removal of your advanced permissions. —Kusma (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: Thank you for the advice. However, that draft was created by an undisclosed paid sock who were later blocked with a few other accounts and was moved back to the draft space per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which states that users with a conflict of interest have no right to object to draftification. I'm not sure when it became acceptable for socks, paid editors, or individuals with a conflict of interest to move their drafts to the main namespace and bypass WP:COI. If there is such a policy, please let me know. GSS ^💬 12:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time" seems crystal clear to me and does not have any COI clause. If the original author turns out to be a banned sockmaster, we can delete everything per WP:CSD#G5 by the time we find out. Until then, we need to assume good faith. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: Roger that. Thank you for your guidance, and please feel free to come again if you have more, as I'm learning all the time. GSS ^💬 13:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, GSS. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC). 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.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:ClimateAi

Just to let you know I am no longer working for ClimateAi. The recent AFC submission which you reverted was not done by me. I suspect it was their staff or that they hired someone else. Freezejunk (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi GSS, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft : Huanyu Entertaintment

Help @GSS , Hello GGS. Can you help me to do another review on my draft article, Huanyu Entertaintment. I would be very grateful if you could take the time to do so. I have completed what was the reason for the previous rejection. I have added some credible sources to support every information I wrote. Thank you very much. Brianfahmiguntara (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Huanyu Entertaintment

Heli @GSS, could u help me to review my article about Huanyu Entertaintment. I have tried to improve this article and complete the source links according to Wikipedia's rules. I hope there is wisdom in reviewing this article. Brianfahmiguntara (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Contesting Speedy Deletion: Wooden Street

I have made substantial changes to the "Wooden Street" article to address the issues raised in the speedy deletion notice. The article now has a neutral tone, is well-cited with reliable sources, and does not contain promotional content. I believe it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Please review the changes and let me know if there is anything i can do.further more,

I will refrain from editing the Wooden Street article or related topics where there may be a perceived conflict of interest.

Thank you.

Val Hansingh (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)