Jump to content

User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Shūkan bunshun smoking scandal

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Here's another random creation that landed on your talk page. I was wondering what you thought of this extensively and lovingly detailed article about some incident that seems totally insignificant to me. I'm just becoming acquainted with working at AFD so I don't know how this would fare there and I thought that you could advise me as you have more experience there as a participant and admin. This article really should probably be merged into the article on the musical group, Onyanko Club but I'm also not an expert with bold moves in content creation.

So, just asking for your opinion here. This article is the page creator's only contribution so far here on Wikipedia. Thanks and I hope you are having a pleasant weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL. Established editor/admins are very much exempt from "random creation" territory. I know who you are and you've clearly explained why you're here. It's funny, you, Explicit and I are ususally "on duty" when the AfD clock strikes overdue. You've gotten to some hairballs first, which is much appreciated.
I think the issues here are multi-fold. Should be merged, as you said, but it needs significant trimming before that is done. I'd have had the same concerns @Hoary raised in AfC reivew. I don't want to edit war with @ArsenalGhanaPartey, but I don't believe this is remotely ready for mainspace. It could either go back to Draft space and trimmed there, which should probably happen as a tabloid scandal for BLPs, or it could be extremely selectively merged into the band's article, which also needs attention for encyclopedic tone, or lack thereof. Given that the main article barely mentions the scandal gives me pause as to whether it was a tempest in a teacup rehashed years later for buzz, or an actual scandal. I can try to look at this in the next few days as far as what could be cut. Hope that helps some? Star Mississippi 01:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. Note the additions since I commented on it; e.g. "When Tomoda was about 30 years old, she started working on handmade bags. Eventually, she became a popular designer with Chieko Kuroda [ja], a popular fashion model, as a client." (With three references!) Carefully edited, this might add up to a mildly interesting and even thought-provoking chapter in a middlebrow book about the pathologies of the aidoru industry; as an [English] Wikipedia article, it's grotesque. (As a Japanese Wikipedia article -- well, perhaps I'd better not comment.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your assessments. Reading (the whole thing), I was just struck by how detailed and referenced it was about a nonevent that happened 35 years ago to a teen band that only existed for a few years! I mean, so much care and effort put into an article about an incident that only mattered to those who policed teenage girls purity in 1980s Japan. If we could only channel people's devotion to pop culture to subjects that actually are consequential, we'd have more articles on scientists and fewer on Pokemon characters. </EndOfRant> Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I think you're a little harsh, Liz. As I skimread it, I thought that the significance of this brouhaha was not only to the morals/indignation police, but about the morals/indignation police. The careers that the latter squelched don't happen to be of interest to me; but it's not for me to judge people's [non-toxic] career choices. The career-squelching is perhaps predictable from the weekly-magazine (shūkanshi) indignation industry of the time (cf Britain's Daily Mail) and the major Japanese commercialization of infantilism and so on in the aidoru industry, but ... er, sorry, I digress. -- Hoary (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks both. I gave it a slight haircut last night but don't have the bandwidth for more at the moment. I still think draftsspace is best, personally. I tend to agree with Hoary that the scandal was notable, but also do agree with you, Liz. Pop culture isn't my avenue either, but I'd love all the museums. Star Mississippi 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Amazing, Star Mississippi: I looked at it half an hour ago and found it impossibly wordy -- and then realized that this was after you'd done an excellent job of chopping away almost half of it. I removed a bit more -- and surprise surprise the result is still impossibly wordy. ¶ Incidentally, I have considerable sympathy for Liz's rant above. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely needs more time/interest than I had this weekend. Ditto the band's article. The amount of overlap in content (and I imagine the show!) proves how interrelated they are, going back to @Liz's initial query. I'll try to find the head space for it later this week. Star Mississippi 00:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Help Request

Dear User:Star Mississippi Please review this List of awards and nominations received by Isyana Sarasvati article, so that it will be better and not removed by naughty editors. I hope my article dont remove to deleting noninations 🙏 Yemimas29 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately this is not a content area with which I'm familiar so don't feel comfortable reviewing. But I'm sure someone will be along to help you soon enough. If not, you can try the Help Desk Have a great day. Star Mississippi 20:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito AfD

sock wasting our time
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Hello- I saw someone recently just closed the discussion. You relisted it to gain a stronger consensus and it was getting there towards a Keep. Two experienced editors came in and stated facts and it It was quickly closed after the second Keep vote- and what I’m guessing is out of spite. The closer describes himself as a deletionist and I think he saw that it was leaning towards a Keep consensus. People were stating facts and they ignored it. Plus it was not even close to the week long debate. I’m not a very experienced editor but I see you are. I don’t think it was handled right. WexfordUK (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @WexfordUK. Four days after my relist is probably fine if the admin felt consensus was emerging. I haven't looked at the discussion since your query about length, so no opinion on whether a consensus had emergef. If you feel strongly that they were in the wrong, I would suggest speaking with them at their talk page before going to Deletion Review. I have not explored the merits of any !votes aside from the blatant socks, so I'm not sure how I personally would have closed it. My personal take is that a 24 day AfD was going to be contentious however it closed, because folks have strong opinions and it appears (again, not delved into sourcing) there are established editors who feel for both outcomes. Star Mississippi 03:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @WexfordUK:, I'm about 60% certain I wouldn't have closed that as delete, and there is some merit to your statements, with the exception of one. I'd like to take a moment to defend the admin who closed as "delete". Sandstein is one of our most experienced closers, and works very, very hard at AfD. I think it's rather unfair to state it was closed "out of spite". There was a lot of bad-faith actors in that discussion thanks to all the sock participation, but Sandstein is anything but a bad faith actor. Please re-think that statement. We all get it wrong sometimes. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@78:26 Hi, Sandstein did not close this discussion. It was Seraphimblade. I listed it under deletion review. WexfordUK (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh cruds, my bad, egg on face, mea culpa, etc... Still, I have the same words for Seraphimblade. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@78:26 It’s all good- I do take it back. Was just really thrown off by the close.

@Star Mississippi Yeah, thanks for the info. Check it out under your relist- 2 Keeps (established editors with stated facts) against 1 Delete and he deleted it early as if consensus was reached. Not the case at all throughout the whole AfD. Really handled poorly from the start on the article. WexfordUK (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's about my bedtime here and I have something in the morning so may not be able to look into this and come back to you until mid afternoon tomorrow, US Eastern time. If you need resolution sooner, I'd try the closing admin. Otherwise I'll try to assist tomorrow. Have a good evening, or err morning if the UK in your screen name is reflective of your location. Star Mississippi 03:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Can you believe we have another blocked sockpuppet here? I am SHOCKED. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
and they were *so* stealth. LOL.
My spidey sense was going off since a new account was so invested in this AfD, but I had nothing of proof since I'm not familiar with the subject beyond relisting the AfD and knew I would be off line. Glad housekeeping serviced the project in my absence. Star Mississippi 15:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Request on 19:16:35, 7 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Obyno2020


I read from the reviews feedback that the article seems to be coming from COI (possibly paid). My aim in becoming a contributor here is to document notable change makers from my country, Nigeria, especially those who are unable to recieve global coverage. Obyno2020 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Looping in @Celestina007 so that we can keep the conversation in one place. One thing I will note is that subjects that are "unable to recieve global coverage" may not have the independent, reliable sourcing to meet biographic notability to have an article. Star Mississippi 19:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Obyno2020, Do you expressly say you do not have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article? Shall we start by how this image is your “own work”? how is it that your talk page is a reservoir of (draftifications) of biographical articles almost all of which are on non notable persons? Can you explain why they are quite promotional? Do you say the subject of our discussion is a “game changer”? (Another WP:LARD but okay) Please what sources substantiate this claim of them being a “game changer” or, to make it easy for you, I’m an expert in Nigerian sources so please do show me any WP:THREE sources that substantiate their notability claim and let me do the evaluation. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
By global coverage, I am talking about CNN, BBC and others. When you search on the Internet you would find many young change makers particularly filmmakers who are notable in their regions. I am particularly interested in change makers from South East Nigeria and I give prominence to subjects that are known in that region. Obyno2020 (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Celestina007
    1 Yes, do expressly state that I have no conflict of interest with the subject.
    2. I got the photo from the database of Directors Guild of Nigeria.
    3. I am interested particularly in subjects around South East Nigeria.
    4. For the subject "Michael Chineme Ike" I cited Vanguard Newspaper as a source and for the other subject "Ugoccie" , I cited The Sun Newspapers. These are two national dailies in Nigeria. Obyno2020 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    @celestina007 I'm very happy that you are an expert in Nigerian sources, please take a look at these [1] [2] Obyno2020 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
        • The first source has no byline which is indicative of an op-Ed source thus bypasses the editorial thus this is not a reliable piece. The second source clearly has no editorial oversight, lacks a reputation for fact checking and pretty much self published thus very unreliable. So 0 reliability here. Any more sources you want me to dissect? Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Please check these sources https://igboradio.com/en/meet-michael-chineme-ike-the-23-year-old-game-changer-in-the-movie-industry
https://independent.ng/teenage-author-writes-history-of-own-clan-in-anambra/ Obyno2020 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Obyno2020. Pinging @Celestina007 on your behalf as this is out of my expertise. There's no one I know more familiar with Nigerian sources so please learn from their advice on how to judge a source, for example the lack of byline and identify stronger ones. Star Mississippi 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I have taken note of that and will consider it in my next article. Let me exhaust all my avaliable options on this subject first. Obyno2020 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
You provided two more sources, I will speak about those soon but first I’d like to point out that your claim to have gotten the image from a website is spurious, I have satisfactory knowledge on files and file moving to know that statement is not true, per WP:BEANS how I know is something I would not reveal. You are however welcome to provide the URL you claim to have gotten the image/file/picture from. Back to the sources, this one has no editorial oversight thus not reliable and this one is okay. Unfortunately one good source doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Star if they continue to persist by providing (sketchy sources?) please ping me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Will flag for you regardless as the RS filter/script doesn't seem to work well for the Nigerian ones and I'm out of my depth in evaluating many of these. Thanks for helping this editor. Star Mississippi 19:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Heartfulness Education Trust

Hi Star Mississippi Thanks for your suggestion/feedback . It helps!! Shall be adding more references as indicated.. Jasperkal (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Star Mississippi,
I have made the recommended changes(added more secondary sources) and published the article.
Thanking again for your suggestions.
Regards
Jasperkal (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
and as you saw, @HighKing moved it back. Please do not move this to mainspace without going through AfC. I don't think you're familiar enough yet with our notability guidelines to understand when an article is merited. Star Mississippi 15:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Olympic Venues

You may be interested in the start class articles Francis Olympic Field and Francis Gymnasium. I came across them while reviewing the 1904 Olympics, and while I don't know much about them, the were used during the events and may be National Historic Landmarks (some sources and our article are in disagreement, but I believe that shouldn't be too difficult to check?).

Francis Field has some significant events related to the Olympics that should be mentioned; in particular, it was one of the sites of the "Anthropology Days", which can be described as the Olympics combined with a human zoo. We don't have an article on the Anthropology Days, so I'm going to try and do that when I have time; I can share any sources I come across on it that relates to Francis Field?

Deb, since you have been around: you may also be interested in the Fort Shaw Indian School girl's basketball team. While they were not considered part of the Anthropology Days, nor are they considered part of the Olympics in modern Olympic scholarship, they have been discussed in the context of both, and I believe it is likely there is sufficient coverage to write an article.

Star Mississippi, are you primarily interested in US venues, or would you also be interested in venues outside of the states? BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! International are welcome should you stumble on them, you don't need to go on a hunt on my account but I'm happy to improve articles in these areas. I'm fine with Spanish sourcing and can generally navigate topical overviews in Japanese. Would need cross check from someone more proficient on some details but wouldn't stop me from research. Oddly I think I've been to more non US Olympic parks & sites (Montreal, Sydney, Seoul, Nagano) than I have US. Oh the things we do as tourists! Thanks again Star Mississippi 03:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Poul Nielson AFD

Unfortunately, draftification is not an amenable solution. As such, would you consider separate AFD's to be appropriate? BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello SM - hope you are well. Lets gets some background here. The OP seems to be following me around - I don't know why. Have a look at my talkpage, and do a CTRL+F to see how many times their name appears in the last month alone. On 4th Feb, an univolved user posted this on their talkpage. I've asked the OP on multiple occasisons to stop following me around (example 1, example 2). There are other examples like this, including more requests not to ping me, notify me, or post on my talkpage. However, that is ignored too. WP:IDHT or WP:STICK? Well look at the thee three discussions starting here on another article's talkpage. For transparency, I've never edited this page or the article in question.
The Poul Nielson AfD goes back to a similar AfD the OP started, which ended in Keep. Note how they are badgering the closer about that, and look at the number of times the OP has insisted on restoring tags to that article, all against consensus.
Now if this was me doing all this, IE moving an article to draft after a no-consensus AfD, continuing to add tags to an article after it had been kept, starting multiple AfDs against one user and continuing to ping + post on a user's talkpage after being told not to do that, how long before I'd be at ANI with editors calling a net-negative and a time sink? A few minutes? Maybe an hour? And I'm pretty sure I'd be looking at further restrictions (at best), if not a ban.
I've moved away from all the "bad" things that have gotten me into trouble of late, but I feel this would boomerang right back at me. Thoughts welcome. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Lugnuts, I am not following you around, as explained in that talk page discussion you linked. In regards to your request to not ping me, notify me, or post on my talkpage, I have for the most part followed it, with the exception of when you have reverted an edit I have made as discussion is required when there is an editing dispute, and when I believe warnings are appropriate. If you wish me to stop doing the second and instead go straight to ANI in the future, please say so.
The example you linked where you say that I ignored your request by notifying you of the AFD is due to me forgetting to check who created the article. When I realized it was you, after Twinkle had posted the automatic notification, I undid it with an apology. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Good morning both and apologies for the delay if we're in different time zones. I have to admit, these sports/Olympics AfDs are a special kind of complicated with the guidelines in the middle of a contentious discussion. I don't feel like I close many sports AfDs but a few have come here and I'm always happy to discuss.
Here's my suggestion for this particular group: @Lugnuts you said I've moved away from all the "bad" things that have gotten me into trouble of late which is great, thank you. And I've personally seen you accept consensus when AfDs for these athletes who are redirected to the relevant Olympic team/games. I know these were created before you understood that these mass entries were not what the community wanted I'd love it if you could accept draftification of some of these without needing to go through seven days per athlete. What harm is there in taking the time to see if sources can be found? If they can, wonderful and they go back to mainspace. If they can't, maybe they can be covered in a list similar to how we handle rosters for contemporary teams where the athletes don't yet mean GNG. I feel like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aage Høy-Petersen, we learned that digitized Danish sources are a challenge, which is likely true for the Nielson "batch" (used in collective sense, not in batched creation) and I (personally, not admin hat) feel a collective list of info is better for the reader who want to understand Danish athletes of a given time (or cricketers, or whichever sport).
If you're dead against it, that's within your right and I'm not going to object to you moving them back to mainspace, however I also have no objection to @BilledMammal, JPL (a few threads up in #I feel you have closed many AfDs in error) or JoelleJay (User_talk:JoelleJay#Amanda_Dennis) creating AfDs for athletes that do not currently meet notability guidelines as the vast majority of the discussions I've seen are completely within policy.
Thoughts? Star Mississippi 15:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this. What about the other issues I've raised here? Is the continued stalking, hounding, pinging, etc, OK? Even AFTER I've posted this here, they [Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#c-BilledMammal-2022-02-20T15%3A05%3A00.000Z-Nigej-2022-02-20T06%3A22%3A00.000Z continue] to ping me! BilledMammal - STOP IT. I'm not interested in anything you have to ping me for. If I miss a conversation, then that's my lookout. You don't need to notify me of anything. Ever. Star Mississippi - Again, if I was continuing with this tenacious editing, I'd be blocked. Thoughts? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Apologies. As I had modified the RFC, I needed to ping all participants, which included you - while I considered omitting you, I didn't feel it would be appropriate in circumstances such as this, where doing so might cause procedural issues with the RFC - another would be where leaving you out could raise canvassing concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Lugnuts @BilledMammal I'm not 100% certain about RFC notification rules, are they like AN/I where it's mandatory, or just suggested mandatory? I got pinged to one where I was involved in the surrounding issue, but hadn't directly contributed and the person who did so was criticized for it, so I'm not sure there's an easy answer. In the interim @BilledMammal I'd suggest you not ping @Lugnuts and note when you leave the note for others that you're explicitly not per their request here or wherever else Lugnuts has mentioned it. As they said, they're taking ownership of missing a conversation. I'd back you there if you got blowback. Lugnuts, I unfortunately think Twinkle is a challenge you may need to navigate regardless of this dispute. I've accidentally templated an other admin even though I unticked the box saying don't notify them (because I wanted to leave a custom note). Let me know if this helps. Star Mississippi 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding RFC's I generally see it as mandatory if I'm pinging a group and they meet the criteria of the group, though I am not aware of whether it is "mandatory" or "suggested mandatory", particularly in cases where concerns such as canvassing might be raised, but what you suggest sounds reasonable - thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to return the conversation here Star Mississippi, but it seems to be the most suitable location: Lugnuts, you can't have it both ways; you can't both want to avoid me, and directly address me as you did here. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure given the volume of sports AfDs whether it's possible for you two to entirely avoid one another, and an interaction ban wouldn't be fair to either of you so not advocating for one. @Lugnuts please don't directly respond to @BilledMammal if you don't want them to ping you. I'm not saying you can't respond to Billed's noms, but I don't think you two need to engage with one another in the discussion. Your opinions as to whether to keep the article or not are well established. Would that work? Star Mississippi 14:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems reasonable; I'm not certain what issue Lugnuts has with me, but I understand that they have some issue, and comments like the linked make it very confusing as to when they consider it acceptable to talk to then. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like we're collectively in a window of time where everything is best described as complex. AfDs over topics we thought were previously established, interactions. I don't think there are any easy answers, unfortunately. From what I've seen in the AfDs where I've been involved (per the normal world, not Wiki speak usage of the word), you two disagree on content which happens. It's a high volume area by virtue of how many athletes exist so seems larger than if it were a topic with fewer open discussions. I don't think there's anything to worry about, hopefully. Note, I will be offline for a few days so if anything does percolate, you may need to ping another admin. I'll have a break template up so you'll know when I go. Star Mississippi 03:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Break

I understand that you are away, and there is no rush, but when you return could you take a look at Three Friends history (Talk) and Jean Couturier history (Talk). I am not sure what to do at this point; they revert dozens of my edits and refuse to discuss, under the apparent belief that I am hounding them. I'm not, but they don't appear to believe that, and it's not practical for me to avoid articles edited by them giving the current overlap of our interests. It's not even possible to avoid articles created by them, given how many of those exist.
At this point, I am wondering if I need to take it to ANI myself, given the disruptive nature of reverting edits while refusing to discuss? BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
As always, there's two sides to this, and BM isn't telling the whole story. At 02:49 on the 4th March, Canadian Paul posts this on his user page where he pings me about a list he's created. FOUR MINUTES later BM starts to work through said list, tagging each and every article, knowing full well that most/all will be stubs I started, and on my watchlist. Star M - you said in one of your most recent replies "I'm not sure given the volume of sports AfDs whether it's possible for you two to entirely avoid one another" OK, fine. But to actively seek out these articles, knowing full well the history here just beggars belief. I'll ask you straight out, as you've not answered it here (that I can see) - but is this pattern of behaviour from BM stalking, hounding, or following another editor around? Ignore the AfD issue - this relates specifically to their conduct here. With the Jean Couturier article - they continued to ping me, despite multiple times being told not to ping me! They obviously can't hear this and refuse to listen. To put it another way - If I was doing this, would you think that was acceptable? Funny that I don't want to discuss anything with this individual with their modus operandi on WP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I thought most of that was explained at the linked Jean Couturier talk page. The rest, you are putting far more thought into this than I did. I've been reviewing the articles of Olympians for notability, and a useful resource came up on my watchlist (I note I didn't tag every article I checked; a couple didn't have clear notability issues). I don't even consider your involvement until it comes time to nominate them for deletion, when I try to remember to check who created the page so I can tell Twinkle not to notify the creator if it is you.
Further, this issue isn't limited to that list. Regardless of how I find the article, you react in the same way, as can be seen at Three Friends, Kyohei Ushio, Jan Jarzembowski, and many others.
If the issue is pinging, then I am willing to commit to not pinging you when you revert my edit, if you are willing to commit to discussing with me when you do so. Is that an acceptable compromise? BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to get too involved in the arguments between Lugnuts and BilledMammal, but I must say that I really do not like how the latter is mass tagging olympic medalists (aren't they passes of NOLY?) for notability, without doing any research on the people being tagged at all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Generally, I avoid medallists; the exception is when all participants win a medal, per the recent change to NOLYMPICS which removes their presumption of notability.
However, the issue with Lugnuts reverting without discussion has continued. I've been reviewing the 1900 Olympics, as while a higher ratio of individuals in that Olympics demonstrate notability there than on the list, I had hoped it would cause less drama, but despite that they've still been silently reverting dozens of my edits; I requested, without pinging them, on a few of the articles that they explain why they consider the athletes notable, but they just continued reverting without explanation. At this point, I believe this may amount to WP:STONEWALLING. BilledMammal (talk)
  • Comment I'm not sure I understand the issues here. However, I would suggest that both parties take a bit of time out. Although consensus has been reached that non-medalling Olympians are not automatically notable, it does not follow that all articles on non-medalling Olympians should be deleted as A7. I would hope that BilledMammal is checking extensively for references to these individuals, many of whom could be notable in other walks of life or have other sporting achievements that were initially overlooked when Lugnuts (or whoever) created the stub. Tagging en masse as non-notable without doing such a check is a waste of everyone's time. I would ask BM and Lugnuts both to keep a distance from one another for at least a few weeks in order to take the heat out of the situation. Please both indicate that you are willing to do that; after a while you may feel better able to interact productively. Deb (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Deb. Yes, fine with me. I've been actively avoiding any interaction with this user for some time now. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Deb: I don't fully understand the issues either; my only issue with Lugnuts is that they are reverting me without discussing. I will note that I'm not tagging these for CSD under A7. Instead, I'm tagging them as "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline", to inform other editors of the issue, and that I will be considering nominating them for deletion in the future. I also don't think it is reasonable to expect me to spend significantly more time reviewing each of these articles than the creator did writing them just to add a notability tag - which is what you would be asking for if you ask me to check extensively for references to these individuals.
I'm willing to continue distancing myself from Lugnuts, with the exception of when they revert my edits, as I consider that them failing to distance themselves from me. However, I note that I don't intend to stop reviewing Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Deb: for addressing this in my absence. @BilledMammal, Lugnuts, and BeanieFan11:, just noting I've seen this and will review to see if anything still needs input when I'm fully back on line. Didn't want you to see a contrib and think I was ignoring the issues you raised. Star Mississippi 15:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, back to a functional computer and keyboard. All the admiration for folks who can edit on mobile, that is not me especially when it's a query that deserves a longer answer. In looking at Three Friends (film), I would say that I agree with the notability tagging. It is unclear whether silentera.com is a RS and a profile there isn't indicative of GNG by a longshot. However my personal, not speaking as an admin belief is that notability tags mean "this needs work" rather than necessarily "this needs deletion". I love working through backlogs to see if they can be cleared. That said, I also think Three Friends is probably notable from this book's coverage and maybe this blurb. I'm not clear how User_talk:Canadian_Paul#Thanks relates back to @BilledMammal: following you there though @Lugnuts:, unless I'm missing an Olympic tie. Is film an area you edit in, BilledMammal? If not, would it be possible for you to check the history before tagging and maybe leave tagging of Lugnuts' stubs to an uninvolved editor to determine whether they need tagging/deletion? I understand with the volume of sports that's not going to happen. Jean Couturier seems a little more tied to Canadian Paul's Olympian list, but I don't know either of your history with him and am taking BilledMammal at their word that they watch CP's page. What I will ask both of you is to not revert one another. You can add/remove tags, but a revert war isn't going to help either of you, or the articles. How does this sound? Lugnuts, if you remove a notability tag, you should either add the source(s) that render it moot or put a note on Talk as to why you don't think it's appropriate. If BilledMammal responds, they won't ping you (per your request and ownership of responsibility of following discussions). I don't think this is an actual solution because you two have disparate opinions on notability, but I have to agree with @Deb: that avoiding one another might be the only option here since agreeing to disagree isn't. You're both absolutely editing in good faith, which makes it more complicated than a situation where there's a bad actor. I realize this probably isn't the answer either of you want, but it's all I can think of. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
That's similar to my view; while many of the articles I nominate I consider likely to not be notable I'm happy to be proven wrong and there are some exceptions such as Francisco Villota, which are more likely to be notable but need sources to support this.
I don't normally edit in the area of film; I only came across that article because a poster for it was in the Signpost and I wanted to learn more. In areas like film which I don't normally edit I can try to check the creator before adding a tag, and not do so if the creator is Lugnuts.
In general, your proposal seems reasonable, thank you; would it be appropriate to restore the tag on articles that it has been removed from without discussion or sources being provided, such as Francisco Villota? BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Star Mississippi - I don't know if you're missing the point I raised, or being obtuse (hopefully not), but I'll state it again - " I'll ask you straight out, as you've not answered it here (that I can see) - but is this pattern of behaviour from BM stalking, hounding, or following another editor around?" I've done my best to avoid and ignore the other user in question, but their hounding of me is the issue that has yet to be addressed by you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry @Lugnuts. I thought I answered it when I said it wasn't clear how the film article tied into @BilledMammal following or hounding you. Is there a link I missed? The Olympian is a little more tenuous, but if BilledMammal follows CanadianPaul's talk and saw the post, it's not clear hounding either. I understand though that it feels that way to you if articles you created are regularly tagged. You're welcome to escalate this further. I don't think it would get you a boomerang, but I do not think we're in sanctions territory for BilledMammal. I'll go look at the Villota article and if I have any feedback will drop it on the Talk so it's there for future editors. Thanks for dropping the sources oN Three Friends' Talk. Star Mississippi 14:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks for this. As I've said, I've been actively avoiding any interaction with this user for some time now, at that's the way I'll continue. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome; I didn't want those references to be lost on your talk page. Thank you for the comments on the Villota article; I will discuss further there. However, would it be generally appropriate to restore the tags, such as at Henry Terry, which is sourced only to databases and is described by Olympedia as "Little is known about Henry Terry"? BilledMammal (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree, @BilledMammal that restoring the tag there would be correct. @Lugnuts I just searched and I cannot find anything even approaching GNG when combined for Terry. Would you object to a redirect to Mixed_team_at_the_1900_Summer_Olympics#Alphabetical_list_of_all_medallists_from_mixed_teams where he's mentioned? I won't AfD it if you don't as I do not have the bandwidth for a sports AfD right now, but it is my opinion that if an AfD were opened, it would likely close as a redirect. No issue with creation, Wiki world was very different in 2006 and I do believe your 2020 edit was an improvement, I just don't think there's enough here. Star Mississippi 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Deb: posted earlier - "I would hope that BilledMammal is checking extensively for references to these individuals, many of whom could be notable in other walks of life or have other sporting achievements that were initially overlooked when Lugnuts (or whoever) created the stub. Tagging en masse as non-notable without doing such a check is a waste of everyone's time." And yet in the space of 2 hours or so last night, BilledMammal tagged more than 200 articles for notability, tagging five or six a minute. How is this not disruptive? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Leave it for an admin to deal with, please. You promised not to stalk one another. Deb (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Deb: Well when I notice them on my watchlist, it's hard not to see this kind of practice. Speaking of stalking, they've also gone out of their way at this AfD to try their best to get it deleted. I look forward to Star Mississippi's reply. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"I look forward to Star Mississippi's reply" - or non reply, as I was expecting. So I'll post it again - "Deb posted earlier - "I would hope that BilledMammal is checking extensively for references to these individuals, many of whom could be notable in other walks of life or have other sporting achievements that were initially overlooked when Lugnuts (or whoever) created the stub. Tagging en masse as non-notable without doing such a check is a waste of everyone's time." And yet in the space of 2 hours or so last night, BilledMammal tagged more than 200 articles for notability, tagging five or six a minute. How is this not disruptive?" " Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
"I look forward to Star Mississippi's reply" - or non reply, as I was expecting. That's disingenuous. I did reply. I said "this has moved beyond talk page resolution", please see the section below. I cannot solve this to your *or* @BilledMammal's liking because there's no easy answer other than you two staying away from one another. While I would have liked to help, closing an AfD does not mandate solving world peace. I've shared my opinion, and that this page isn't watched enough by others, so the conversation needs to go elsewhere for a solution. I'm not saying either of you isn't welcome here - you absolutely are -- but I think we've hit an impasse on this particular issue. Star Mississippi 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Tagging articles only helps other editors identify issues that need to be resolved, and there is no obligation on the tagger to confirm the issue cannot be fixed before adding the tag. Of course, before I nominate the article for deletion I will do an appropriately comprehensive search for sources unless the article fails WP:NOT.
While here, please see this comment, which I believe you missed. I would also ask that your revert your recent removals of tags elsewhere, as you haven't added the source(s) that render it moot, or put a note on Talk as to why you don't think it's appropriate.
Finally, can you explain why you believe my contributions at that AFD are problematic? BilledMammal (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I note that even after the comment above, Lugnuts continues to remove tags, such as at Edward Richardson (gymnast) (British Gymnast who competed in a team of 45 in the 1908 Olympics, and is sourced solely to Olympedia and Olympics.com) and at Georges Donnet and Édmond Dharancy (two French gymnasts who competed in a team of forty in the 1908 Olympics, and are sourced solely to Olympedia and Sports-Reference) without adding source(s) that render it moot, or putting a note on Talk as to why they don't think it's appropriate. At this point I believe it is clear that they are WP:STONEWALLING. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Break

I think this has moved beyond talk page resolution @Lugnuts, Deb, and BilledMammal: especially as I appear to be in a different time zone than all of you, and my Talk page is not heavily watched, which leaves issues unresolved for longer than needed. I don't have any further solutions off hand that can solve the impasse since you two fundamentally disagree on athletes' notability. I'm not sure what the answer is as an interaction ban would heavily impact both of your editing areas. Happy to chime in on a larger discussion and have this referenced, but I don't think I can solve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but I also don't believe this is a good time for a WP:ANI thread; there are too many tensions with the implementation of the NSPORT RFC. However, I also cannot accept Lugnuts reverting sensible tags without resolving the issue or explaining why they are removing it.
As such, I am unsure about what I should do - if this was brought to ANI, what do you think the result would be? BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the sig. I get spoiled by the reply tool. Courtesy heads up to @Lugnuts @Deb since it wouldn't have worked on my first.
My gut is an ANI will close with an interaction ban, which I don't believe will work. Not because either of you wouldn't honor it - I think you would - but because it would drastically impact both of your editing. While you edit in other areas, it seems a large percentage of both of your edits are in sports so there's no practical way to avoid one another. I think your gut that it isn't a good time is correct since it seems the community is exhausted by the sports debated. Neither of you is objectively right or wrong on the players' notability, which leaves us back at the impasse. Star Mississippi 23:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that an interaction ban would not work - I also don't see the need for it, as I am struggling to see any issue here beyond Lugnuts reverting my edits without discussion. I understand he believes I am hounding him, but I am struggling to understand why - for instance, he gave that recent AFD as an example of it, but I can't understand why he believes that AFD is an example.
I think a better question is whether I am wrong to add the tags, or if Lugnuts is wrong to remove them without discussion or correcting the issue. I am willing to abide by your decision, and hopefully Lugnuts is willing to do the same.
Alternatively, if you don't want to make a ruling on that, I am willing to AFD them now, if you believe the formal process of AFD will cause less drama than tagging them for notability - while I had wanted to give editors a chance to improve them before taking that step, as well as avoid overloading AFD with nominations, it might be the best option at this point? BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I see @Deb was able to find sourcing to solve the Henry Terry issue, so I gather that one is resolved? I haven't explored the sourcing, but making an assumption based on what I know of Deb's edits. I haven't had the chance yet to look at the links that are mentioned above due to time, although I'm happy to as soon as I'm able. I personally, not as an admin think it would be better if someone else made the AfD nominations if they're necessary. Since these are mostly long dead people and the information isn't controversial, there is no reason they need to be deleted now or a decision made. If these articles need improvement, it would be helpful if that need could be tracked. @Lugnuts can you clarify please whether your issue is with them being tagged for notability, or that you feel BilledMammal is hounding with their tagging? I ask because in some AfDs you have been OK with and even voted for a redirect. To be clear, I am not advocating someone proxy for BilledMammal, nor do I think it's what they're asking, and I do not intend to tag/nominate as Olympians are not an area on which I'm focusing. Museums & historic sites on the other hand? Give me them all. Thoughts? Thanks all. Star Mississippi 01:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The Henry Terry issue isn't resolved; Deb found a source that discussed Cricket at the early Olympics, but it didn't mention Henry Terry - it's relevant and verifiable, but not significant coverage.
There isn't a rush to get the articles deleted, particularly as some of them can probably be improved, but there are large numbers - probably tens of thousands - of Olympian articles sourced solely to databases, and it is better to start on that issue now rather than waiting another decade. An alternative possibility that I have been considering is a village pump proposal to draftify or merge all Olympian articles sourced solely to databases as WP:NOTDATABASE violations, but now is not the right time for that either.
As for Museums & historic sites, I'm sure I can find some Olympic sites in need of editor attention :D. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Wholly agree that how is not the time for that RfC. We're on the verge of needing VP:Sports because these are all valid and important questions, but ones for which there's no clearcut answer, which is why the Sports notability thread ate the Village Pump. People are making very good cases all around. Again, my personal hat and not my admin one: we collectively need to decide if we're a directory or an encylopedia. We don't need articles on every thing if we can't find enough to write an article. I've been running against this in Mongolian fast food chains, Romanian schools, Ugandan clinics and more (all closed, so not a canvas issue) and while I'm aware and conscious of avoiding systemic bias, I think it's OK if another language project has an article we don't if we cannot verify anything because of access to the sources.
Off topic of this thread: Please feel free to flag those Olympic cultural sutes for me if you stumble on them. Working with @FLoridaArmy on some historical associations and sites they've identified in Louisiana and Mississippi and I always love more. Star Mississippi 01:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Or even VP:Notability. But I agree, and also note that different projects have different notability guidelines; even when we can access the sources, we may disagree with what they consider suitable. See discussion below about cultural sites. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Funny how Mammal only prod'd ONE article that I removed the notability tag for (an article I created, of course), that being of Percy Baker, AFTER I added some extra info. @Deb: - this is a Welsh gymnast BTW. They keep spouting the same rubbish of "Violates WP:NOTDATABASE", but I doubt they've even bothered to read that, which goes on to state - "1. Summary-only descriptions of works." N/A here. "2. Lyrics databases." - No, not even close. "3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" Nothing here is excessive or unexplained. "4. Exhaustive logs of software updates" No, another fail. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts and BilledMammal: My absolute final comment on this page. Time to STOP this bickering now. Lugnuts, you're way too sensitive. BM, you're being disingenuous. I suggest both of you stay away from stubby Olympic athletes unless you are going to do something to improve them. If not, I think there's a case for a temporary block on both of you for edit warring, and I'm prepared to impose it. If you're not happy to do what I suggest, you know where ANI is. Deb (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Deb, I realize you said last comment, but I don't see how I am being disingenuous; for most of his accusations of hounding, I cannot even understand why he believes that - if you can explain why he believes I am hounding him in the AFD he linked previously, I would appreciate you explaining it to me. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
That's fine with me. THanks, Deb. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is healthy

At Talk:LetsRun.com you will see that Hatchens is unsure about the notability of the topic of the article. I am sure you will see that neither their nor my comments about the article in any way invalidate or criticise your acceptance. We are all single opinions. In some cases acceptance is an ideal way of letting the community decide. so I think you made the right call. If it goes to AfD I am unsure which side of the borderline I will come down on. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Giovanni Bonati (gymnast)

I was about to remove the speedy from Giovanni Bonati (gymnast) and add a message on the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Bonati (gymnast) there is not a prohibition from creating a redirect "This is not a prohibition on anyone else creating such a redirect if they care to - I just don't see a specific consensus for it here." Jeepday (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeepday. I just left a note at Lugnuts' Talk on this broader topic User_talk:Lugnuts#Gösta_Grandin. I don't think he should be the one creating these redirects due to his COI with respect to these stubs as well as his ban on creating short articles, which I'm not sure covers redirects. Happy to undelete for someone else's decision on it. Will do so momentarily. Star Mississippi 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:COI does not apply here, as Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. None of which applies to Lugnuts unless he's being paid by/is a family member of an Olympic medallist from 1908.... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Very true. I believe it's still a conflict of interest in the English language sense since he was the creator and voted against the consensus to create the redirects therefore he is not neutral as far as whether a redirect should exist. In some discussions, there is a consensus for redirect, there was not in this case and one other. Like everything else around NSPORTS, clear as mud. Star Mississippi 16:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Draftify

Hi, please note that if an article that is drafted and then contested by moving it back to mainspace the correct procedure is not to re-draft it but to take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you. I was not aware that was the case when it's only the creator who deems it ready for mainspace. I'll go revert my move if you haven't already. Thanks again. Star Mississippi 17:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI close

Please consider undoing your close at Special:Diff/1078644866. A thread should be allowed to run for more than 14 hours before someone decides that consensus will not develop; at least multiple days should be given for people to read and comment, as not everybody can read, think, and write about everything within 14 hours or even within one day. I was planning on commenting and probably supporting warnings, but not until I have time to look at it again closely later. Also, in any event, I see burgeoning consensus developing for a warning, so aside from the timing issue, I think you're substantive read of consensus is incorrect. Thanks, Levivich 19:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Done and converted to a note. Thanks for your request, always happy to have my decisions queried. Star Mississippi 19:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Luis Fernando Cifuentes Monje

Hello, Star Mississippi,

An editor tagged this page as a CSD G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Fernando Cifuentes as a "soft delete". Since this article can be restored upon request, I'm not sure how to treat this speedy deletion tagging. As a contested deletion? Should the original article be restored instead of this one? Wondering what your take on this is as the AFD closer. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz. I think it's fine to restore it as an expired PROD or relist since it just closed last week. I missed this before @JBW deleted it again at @Richard3120's tagging.
My concern is the creation at an alternate title, which I'm not sure but may have been an attempt at evading scrutiny since he requested the AfD tags be deleted. I personally think paid contributions (no outing, Juanma281984 has disclosed) should go through AfC. Thoughts on that? It was very sparsely attended, but I don't see evidence he passes WP:PROF. Star Mississippi 22:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with whatever the admins decide – if it needs to go through AfD again, so be it. I agree that the alternate title does look like evading the result of the last AfD – as you probably know, Hispanic people have both paternal and maternal surnames and that's what's being used here, but there's no evidence the subject commonly uses the second surname (most Hispanics don't bother with it except for formal documentation). Richard3120 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we can restore it to draft space under Luis Fernando Cifuentes per Common Name and lack of evidence as I similarly can't find anything under the full name. Ideally we can convey the AfC process as a route to mainspace. @Liz does that work for you? Thanks both Star Mississippi 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, whatever you decide is fine by me. It was just an unusual decision for an editor to go, recreating a very extensively referenced article after a soft delete instead of just asking for the article to be restored. Maybe they kept a copy in their sandbox? I guess it shows an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's deletion process which, admittedly, is pretty opaque for those who don't live and breathe Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree on all counts. I'm going to try and walk the editor through it as best I can. I think/hope we can avoid an additional AfD. Thanks all Star Mississippi 01:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Shortcuts

You are using shortcuts without wikilinks. They are not english words. It is confusing. Please add the links. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuhin Sinha (2nd nomination) Venkat TL (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added them. It's ggenerally expected that those participating in AfD have enough familiarity with wiki speak to understand the shortcuts, or type them in and access the information if they're not. I'm bemused that you left plain text when chastizing me for same. Star Mississippi 18:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I noted the same immediately after I hit publish. I posted here out of concern. I had clicked on the canvas template and found that this subject of Afd is actively canvassing for votes. So I guess clueless folks hired by him would be coming to participate. Your link would be helpful. Thanks for agreeing to add the links. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

J.J. Portman

Thanks for the block. I'm actually about to file an SPI/just ask a steward to globally lock as they're clearly a sock of this funny farm. CUPIDICAE💕 17:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome @Praxidicae. Thought I smelled something funny with those ridiculous summaries but couldn't recall the master. Assuming block will be taken over by CU/Steward, but feel free to ping if not and I need to upgrade to a regular indef. Star Mississippi 17:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the case is pretty old so it'll be hard to get anything definitive but I think the fact that they're creating the same nonsense hoaxes xwiki is good enough...that and they don't seem to be here for anything productive. CUPIDICAE💕 17:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Giuseepe Fago

I really find Lugnuts accusing me of nominating Giuseppe Fago for deletion as a "revenge" nomination an uncalled for attack on me. I am debating taking this to ANI. It is to me clearly part of a general pattern by some to try to abuse people who start AfDs into stopping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Johnpacklambert I am not going to take action as I could reasonably be considered Involved with respect to both of you. Lugnuts and I have some history (See #Poul_Nielson_AFD, above), as do you and I. I think any admin action I took would rightfully be questioned, and I'd like to avoid that step. I'm not familiar with your history with Lugnuts aside from frequently being on opposing sides of AfDs, so I couldn't begin to guess why he'd call this revenge. I would say that it appears you have a legit case, i.e. it wouldn't be a boomerang as this is definitely afoul of no personal attacks. Hope that's helpful. Star Mississippi 18:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6&oldid=1090275897"