Latest comment: 10 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Star Mississippi, I noticed that you are a member of WP:Theatre and have worked on several art museum articles. I would appreciate your opinion on the article draft that I created for Carl Thoma, an art collector and businessman. Because of my COI, I do not want to publish the article myself; if you agree that it has potential, would you mind helping to have it ready for main space? Thank you very much! JBarTB (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @JBarTB. I'm not able to review or work this in the immediate future. Rather than reaching out to individual editors it might be a better use of your time to just submit it to AfC. You're eligible to do so as an editor with a COI StarMississippi19:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Star Mississippi,
When you have the opportunity I wondered if you might take a look at a couple of COIN threads and take any action you think may be necessary. Alternatively, if no action is necessary I’d genuinely be very grateful for input on that. There's no particular hurry incidentally, just whenever you should have the time…
Thread 1: [1]. User EastThermopolis is either involved in UPE or they are some kind of dyed-in-the-wool promo editor. Perhaps 12 or more editors have found issue with their larger edits over a long period of time (for details see thread), but they have a sideline in large numbers of very similar minor edits which obscure the broader pattern on their contribution history. Their larger edits are almost always reverted, part deleted, or brought to COIN, etc.
Also, user Lullaby09! is an obvious in-house UPE account.
Thread 2: [2]. This thread relates to the widespread COI editing of Indian Army unit articles that came to light at ANI earlier this year. The three accounts originally raised in this thread were blocked. I located a further 10, but there seems to have been no appetite to dispense the same sanctions.
Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:
I find the tone quite unsuitable for a Wikipedia article; e.g., "[Alibi's] strove for inclusivity and served as a destination among the queer community in a red state" is a very strong opinion that is not supported by the cited sources, i.e., it's a failed verification. To explain what I mean, let's have a look at footnote 2 and compare the cited source with the draft:
• The draft claims that Alibi's "strove for inclusivity", while the source reads "Krystal and Tiffany (owners of Alibi's) made a big point about the bar being inclusive." → The source represents the bar owners' opinion which is not what I would deem independent. A correct representation of the source would be: According to Tastingtable, the owners of Alibi's "made a big point about the bar being inclusive".
• The draft claims that Alibi's "served as a destination (…) in a red state." The source cites Ann Harris – a co-owner of a different lesbian bar in Oklahoma – who briefly mentions the term "red state". The source, however, doesn't discuss that in great detail with any connection to this draft's topic. → Again, the source merely (re)presents an intellectually non-independent individual's opinion rather than its own.
• The draft claims that Alibi's was "the city's most diverse neighborhood bar." The source describes that Oklahoma City grows in population, and that this growing poluation is diverse ("an influx of (…) increasingly diverse (…) residents") which the source attributes to Tulsa Remote: "Tulsa Remote (…) [incentivizes] a wave of new residents from a diverse range of backgrounds." → The source doesn't make the claim that Alibi's was the "most diverse" bar in its neighbourhood.
Frankly, I also find such a claim very difficult to support because diversity cannot be easily measured; I know that I'm making a point here but consider these questions: Which is the world's most lesbian-friendly city? Who is the most influential queer individual of our time? Where is America's most diverse gay bar? I hope you get the point, these questions cannot be answered with a mathematically true or false answer. Wikipedia can only represent opinions on these questions, and in order to comply with WP:NPOV, an ideal article on Wikipedia should represent all major opinions on a matter. To call a spade a spade, I reckon that the draft represents a very niche point of view which may well be aligned with your own (in Wikipedia terms: This could be WP:OR). This is avoided when closely citing all major sources. As a side effect, this practice of closely citing all major sources also contributes significantly to the demonstration of notability – that is because it doesn't only introduce major sources to an article, but also, it shows what the sources have to discuss. The demonstration of the latter is key for notability demonstration.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alibi's and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
All good @Johannes Maximilian as I knew it was thin, which is why I put it through AfC vs. creating it. It's closed so this will die a G13 unless I G7 it. Haven't decided if I'll look for better sourcing. While I disagree with your perception of OR, that's neither here nor there. I'd suggest you not use the phrase call a spade in AFC review as it can be unintentionally offensive. StarMississippi01:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good morning! I don't mean to be offensive; maybe, the WP:♠ essay needs amending? Honestly, I hope you don't interpret this as me putting forward allegations, but please understand that – as I have described in last night's comment – that making a conclusion such as "Alibi's is the city's most diverse neighborhood bar", which is not stated by the cited source, but instead based on an analysis of that source, is included in the definition of WP:OR. I also found it very important to demonstrate how that OR works – the source describes the city's residents as diverse, it doesn't make that claim about the bar; by interpreting the source and presuming that, if the residents are diverse, and if they go the bar, the bar must become diverse too, the OR is made. However, the bar doesn't inherit the "diversity property" from its guests. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know you didn't and don't want to know, which is why I flagged it @Johannes Maximilian. Your English is 1000% better than any of my second languages, but changing language and idioms are tricky even in one's native language. And yes, the essay probably also needs updating so others don't fall into that issue unknowingly.
I totally respect your decision to decline and am not second guessing that. At one point I wanted to create articles for the Lesbian Bar Project but independent of this assessment, I realized it wasn't going to be possible for all of them to meet N:ORG. As it's unlikely a closed bar will generate more coverage, this one will fall off and that's absolutely fine.
It may be subjective since it's quoting the owner but the source in its own voice says "Alibis, in Oklahoma City, calls itself “OKC’s most diverse neighborhood bar.” (Angela Jones)" That's what doesn't make it OR or my interpretation of the source. That's where I disagree on your assessment as OR. But all editors-especially both of us who have seen lots of drafts over our tenures, will disagree and that's OK. I know it's not the sole or even primary reason you declined. StarMississippi17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for understanding! I know, it can be difficult when you realise that the subject or topic you want to write an article about isn't well covered by any good sources. That experience can be quite frustrating; I've been there before. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hey Star Mississippi, sorry to bother, but would you mind taking a look at this user's behavior pertaining to Darnell Edge and its talk page? The user has been paid by the article subject and initially wrote about 90% of the article. After they were asked about COI, they declared the paid status, and have since been instructed to not directly make sourcing or content changes, yet completely ignored that with a major content addition in the face of talk page objections about the sourcing. They seem to be bypassing consensus and proper editorial process. I'm thinking a page block from the article may be necessary as a minimum stopgap measure. Any assistance would help, thanks. Left guide (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello. There seems to be a misunderstanding and I apologize for the trouble. I am completely new to the Wikipedia content creation process as this is my first time creating one. I’m really proud of the work I’ve done on this page but have struggled to comply with the various requirements as it is a bit confusing. I did initially request changes prior to including them back on the page, but I thought if I just updated the sources then it would be okay. But I apologize for The misunderstanding and mistakes. Will I still be able to request information be at least added to the page, and another admin will have to input them if approved? Will I be blocked forever? And will I be able to create other wiki pages in the future now that I know all of the different requirements and regulations? Thank you in advance for your help. InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @InfinitiBowie97. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but you'll have to show a good history of your edit requests meeting all policies and guidelines before someone will consider allowing you access to edit directly. While you have made the disclosures (thank you!), it's good practice not to edit an article where you have a WP:COI directly even if you're allowed. Article creation is hard. I recommend making edits to learn more about the project before you decide to start trying to write more articles. You are only blocked from that one article, so you're allowed to edit anywhere else. Just be mindful of what you've learned so far. StarMississippi00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the insight @Star Mississippi! Okay understood. As I did disclose that I am a paid editor for this page and its creation, it is important that I can still add new information. So if I am to remain blocked on the page for direct edit access, should I continue to request through you and the talk page? InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's specific to A/MFDs. Something with the header. I'll flag it for @Novem Linguae if I can reproduce it because right now we're firmly in I broke something again but can't explain it territory. Thanks for flagging & fixing @Left guideStarMississippi01:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I read that as something @Piotrus would have been OK with, not that they preferred it which is why I didn't close it as such. But since we're treating this as a contested PROD, I've done so. If someone feels it's not a good solution it can be sorted out down the line at RfD. Thanks for flagging @GhostOfDanGurneyStarMississippi00:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You closed this discussion as delete, but it doesn't look like you deleted any of the pages.
If you were using a script to close this nomination, it's possible that it got confused by the "and subpages" links I included in the list of nominated pages. When you do close this nomination, please make sure that those subpages are all deleted as well. Omphalographer (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You know what I mean, but since you'd like me to clarify: WP:DTTR. Voters disagree, that doesn't mean they're doing it wrong or need to be told about ATA. It comes across really disingenuous, which I know you don't mean. StarMississippi22:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply but I REALLY do not know what you mean and honestly, I am not pleased by the fact that you assert that I do. Why would I waste my time asking you, if I did understand?.ATA? Mentioning ATA, is that it???? PLEASE..... look at the page history...who mentioned ATA in the first place? Not me..... I don't mind, and it was certainly done in good faith, I am sure, but I think I should at least be allowed to comment. I am really puzzled by your comment, to tell you the truth. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
AND DTTR? I had missed that part. I did not template any regular. Where? When? Who?.... What are you talking about? I never template anyone, even the most blatantly vandal IPs!! Are you sure you are talking about me at that AFD? There must be some misunderstanding or something I missed because I have no idea of what you're talking about. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You said, The essay WP:ATA is indeed rather interesting to read...Can also apply to certain delete !votes, btw,
Comes across as expecting editors aren't familiar with it, when we all (including you) are veterans. It's the same logic as DTTR. You don't mean it, but it's how it comes across. This is not about whether the article is kept or not, it's far too early to tell, but I don't think you want to come across talking to other editors that way. StarMississippi02:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for clarifying but again .....I am just commenting on what is obviously a comment on my vote, citing ATA (and erroneously, on top of that); that is why I felt I had to explain what ATA says and not. Indeed, I am seriously just indicating that ATA does not apply to "WP:XXX because YYY"-type !votes but only to "WP:XXX"-type !votes! Why did I do it? Because that is what is clearly stated by another user (who happens to !vote in a "WP:XXX'-fashion on top of it, in their !vote, which is ironic). Now, if you prefer explaining that yourself as admin/relister (as nominator, in fact), feel free to strike out that comment of mine and make the clarification about what the essay really says yourself, the way you think best, if you think that's more appropriate. I honestly won't mind. But I still don't understand why you focus on my mention on ATA. When I quote essays (I rarely quote essays) or guidelines erroneously, if someone corrects me, I stand corrected. Thank you all the same. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)07:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to strike it, even if I weren't nominator. I understand what you're saying here, but that's not how it comes across which is telling us to read ATA. I know that's not what you want to do, which is why I flagged it. StarMississippi02:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 28 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, a quick Q regarding your closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flirtini (app). My understanding was that a speedy deletion could happen at any time at an admin's discretion if the situation meets one of the criteria. Your comment about mootness made me wonder whether I am correct. Is "speedy delete" disallowed as an option in a relisted AfD? Thanks for clarifying! Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! My understanding with AfD, which may well be wrong, is that speedy is the OK to close it in fewer than the initial 7 days because while it wasn't CSDed, it meets one of the criteria or it's snowing. Since an AfD can be closed at any time following the relist, we don't need the speedy. Your !vote and BD2412's gave the consensus that the outcome was delete. There was nothing wrong with your note-it's not not disallowed but not necessary, if that makes sense? While I have you, thanks for weighing in on all those arena event AfDs so we could have some consensus instead of another silent relist. StarMississippi13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 28 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi @Star Mississippi, I'm super confused about the "no consensus" decision. 4 policy-based keeps, and the nominator's concern was addressed... There was no one, including the nominator, claiming that the subject is not notable. Source analysis showed 2 strong GNG compliant sources. And a super detailed analysis showing that NACTOR is satisfied. How come it is not closed as keep? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker and thanks for your note. I also weighed @Oaktree b & @GMH Melbourne (no action needed, courtesy ping on mention)'s input as weighing in on sourcing but not strongly enough to advocate for a keep (nor argue foe deletion) which is how I landed on NC. I've re-read my close and assessment and I don't see a keep here. It's a distinction without a difference given the outcome is for retention of the article, but if you believe I'm wrong I have no objection to a DRV being filed. About to step offline for a few hours so pardon any delay in response. StarMississippi19:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @ToBeFree @Netherzone. NZ, your timing is impeccable. I was just talking with a friend about our trip to Fushimi Inari which was somehow probably 20 years ago (might have been '06). I got tired of whack a sock, and the poor goats were getting tired. Have a good evening both of you. StarMississippi01:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
One of my most favorite places in the whole world! Be well, and don't let the socks get under your skin - toss em into the machine that loses socks. Have a wonderful weekend to the both of you. Netherzone (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is one of the most incredible sacred sites I've ever seen! And I can't believe you also mentioned Miyajima...remember all those little crabs crawling around at low tide at Itsukushima Shrine! I have some good friends who are currently visiting Japan for the first time, and I mentioned to them that they must go to Fushimi Inari, Miyajima, and Nara. I absolutely loved Nara, spent a whole week there - the Shinto Shrine Kasuga-taisha, the botanical gardens, the Todai-ji Buddhist temple, all the friendly sacred deer all over the city, that huge park, and the road up the hill (can't remember the name, something like the road of 10,000 lanterns.)
I have three colleagues going to Japan this month and I'm so jealous (in a benign, not mean way) of them because there is nothing like autumn in Japan. The road to Omiwa Shrine @Netherzone? Such solace. Loved Misen-san in Miyajima. I found it necessary after the pain that was Hiroshima.
@ToBeFree you should. The flight is long so plan a month if you can. Two weeks at a minimum unless you're doing one city. It's a nation of huge contrasts from the bustling built up cities to the quiet of the towns and even more rural areas. Even within the contrast of Nagoya and the Fuji Go Ko region just an hour from Tokyo. StarMississippi22:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! I'll make a note in the close, but the merger destination is actually an editorial one and not admin. @DoctorWhoFan91 I'd suggest that you, @Cunard and any other interested editors discuss on which you think is the best fit. Let me know if that's helpful? StarMississippi13:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 days ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I wondered if I could draw your attention to the following brief thread at WP:COIN, [3]. The user is a spam only account recently blocked on German Wikipedia who has transferred their activities to English Wikipedia. I think there is probably a strong case for a site block. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you have the time it may also be worth looking at this brief thread on a separate subject, started by user:Fram. It's about another user engaged solely in promotion and ignoring multiple warnings. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Blocked. I have some concerns about whether the article should exist or if it's BLP1E territory but don't have the on wiki time to dig into that right now. StarMississippi15:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, sorry to bother you with a bit of drama....User:Gingeksace (from the Lerro/Empathism ANI) who is blocked continues to make legal attacks and personal attacks against me here and on Commons and my own talk page was vandalized a few days ago by one of their socks. I'm wondering if their talk page access should be restricted because now they are doing this on their own user talk. Netherzone (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Star Mississippi! May I ask you to restore text to my talk page? it contains useful discussion and research about the Aba genus, which I may use later. Norden1990 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It will be closed when an administrator feels the discussion has concluded. They will then decide whether the page block continues to the article. StarMississippi15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello again.
I wondered if you might take a look at the following COIN thread [6].
Basically it seems to be a long term (10 year +) COI user who repeatedly creates article about themselves, family members, bosses, companies worked for, etc. etc. (all with questionable sourcing and notability).
The user continues to vehemently deny any COI, but they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and are involved in a great deal of promo activity.
Many thanks, Axad12 (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries, the user was blocked in the end, which was the right result.
There's another COIN thread here [7] where a very clear UPE account is repeatedly denying COI on their talk page, repeatedly removing tags and even taking down a speedy deletion template. Personally I don't really see any possible outcome except for an indef as they have had several warnings, but would value your input as always. Axad12 (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Me too! I resisted them entirely until I did some cleanup on a List article that was tables upon tables. I still find them challenging in ways wiki formatting really isn't. Thanks again for flagging it. StarMississippi21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Could you please make this Empathic troll go away and head back to its local Trollosphere? [8] It's little sock puppet's name is Garlif23. Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
We edit conflicted in the best possible way. Blocked, rev del'ed. So sorry you're still dealing with this. I don't know if there's an edit filter that would stop them. Let me know if you want your page semi'ed. Happy to do so. StarMississippi23:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's probably some English language issues with the guidelines. I wanted to help them, but we'd moved into DE territory which was made clearer with the unblock requests. I think they probably need to edit elsewhere as even if it's in mainspace, the tone isn't going to work. I'm not against an unblock but it doesn't seem likely StarMississippi12:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Star Mississippi, thanks for the welcome! I was indeed trying to edit the CitizenLab article/page because it contains wrong factual information. We're not called CitizenLab anymore and the name should be changed throughout the page. I also edited the website and the logo. I understand Wikipedia's caution to letting people edit articles where there could be a conflict of interest, but we should at least be able to correct mistakes on the page? :) I would really appreciate some help with updating the name of the page/moving it so it reflects our actual name. Sören3300 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good morning. You have yet to make the required declarations (WP:PAID) which you are required to do or you will be blocked.
I see you repeated your ask at the Teahouse, so someone will help you there they believe the sourcing is sufficient. (Google results are not necessarily a reason to do so) Please let me know if you need anything else. StarMississippi12:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Star Mississippi,
I'm not sure what to do here about this article. You closed a DRV and restored this AFD-deleted article to Draft space but it has quickly been moved to main space and from my too-quick review, it looks like the only change is to add references about the coaching staff. Should it be re-draftified or tagged for CSD G4?
From my quick glance, it's not a G4. You (generic, not you personally) can make a case for a new AfD after two years. That was my logic in speedy closing the DRV. The close was fine but potentially no longer relevant since @Hameltion IDed new sources so might as well give them time to improve it. I have no objection to an AfD (or a G4 if you believe it is one). StarMississippi02:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As always, I trust your judgment, SM. I just know I can get frustrated when I've restored a deleted article to Draft or User space and then it is immediately moved to main space. But I will pursue it no further. LizRead!Talk!05:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll be honest, I didn't notice it until you flagged it @Liz. I feel that concern when it's a problematic article/subject, but this deserves another chance. If folks feel the sourcing still isn't there, it can be re-deleted. StarMississippi01:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I am the creator of the page the Sligo Wild Geese that was deleted a short while ago. I am likely to create it again, this time with a few more references. Though they are hard to come by for this time and place. However, its my fault i did not see the deletion flag as ive not been active on the Wiki for a while. The page might not have seemed impressive, but i can assure you the subject matter is important enough to warrant a mention in the wiki at least. I hope you will have no objections to its recreation. Kodai (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! Apologies for the delay, I've been offline. I'm not able to dig into this right now as my on wiki time remains limited. Would you like me to revert? I'm happy to since it seems both should close in the same way and "your" MfD had a clear redirect consensus. StarMississippi01:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's all there is to it, there's nothing deeper. I think it would be "nice" to have them both closed with the same outcome, because it really was the same discussion with the exact same participants, and the consensus in the MfD you closed got obscured by the fact that the discussion was divided on two pages. Thanks, and hope you're enjoying the autumn colors. —Alalch E.09:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Star Mississippi. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is SPI. Message added 20:40, 22 October 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sent you an email about evidence of an SPI filing I am about to make. Looking for a second set of eyes and you had previous dealings so hopefully you guide me one way or the other. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It already states It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin. The names and titles of early Keraite leaders suggest that they were speakers of Turkic languages, but coalitions and incorporation of sub-clans may have led to Turco-Mongol amalgamation from an early time. So based on etymology, we shouldn't conclude it's Turkic or Mongol, since Other researchers also suggested that the Mongolian name Khereid may be an ancient totem name derived from the root Kheree (хэрээ) for "raven" since this example doesn't even mention that Turkic word raven has the same roots, and is even Turkic in origin. What is clear that this tribe had both elements. Wikitionary Proto-Turkic/kargaBeshogur (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Vofa. No one but admins is able to edit the page right now because you were both edit warring. Please make an edit request on the Talk page and an admin will assess and address it, if they feel it's needed. I am not able to weigh in on content in this subject area. StarMississippi11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. Are you able to check if this IP is related to this user that you subject blocked for COI? The IP has edited a related sandbox and the page that the original account is blocked from editing. It's a minor edit but I suspect block evasion. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I hope it was just accidental/testing and have cautioned them as such. I'll keep an eye out for further. Thanks for your work cleaning up the article @DaHuzyBru and flagging this. StarMississippi11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Edit warring SPA who does not respect the results of the COI edit request process
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
I wondered if you might take a look at this COIN thread [10].
The SPA (on the issue of whether 2 companies are Chinese state-owned) edit warred on 2 articles before being encouraged to declare COI and to make COI edit requests. He then made the edits again rather than waiting for the edit requests to be approved and was told not to do so again.
A month later one request was turned down and the other remained outstanding, so the SPA returned to edit warring over the material at both articles.
I'd suggest that the user be blocked from editing the two articles. They are inexperienced and obviously have strong feelings on the matters involved, but they had previously been warned that a block might result.
Hi @Axad12. I'm not going to be able to give this far eyes for a few days, unfortunately. Please let me know early next week if it's still an issue and I've not come back to it/another admin hasn't addressed. StarMississippi16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Blocked for UPE. I'm in favor of one page (or namespace) block, but when we get into multiple it's my opinion that the disruption will move. Of course if he convinces another admin, they're welcome to adjust the block. Sorry for the delay. StarMississippi01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Star, would you mind expanding on your close rationale? From what I could gauge we have the nom; @Russ Woodroofe's "weak delete" that seems to at least partly be weak because of the possibility of NAUTHOR and the interview in NPR (which our policy lists as primary "depending on context", with the context not being particularly applicable in this case); a weak keep that can be discounted entirely since it's based on authorship that turned out not to exist; a weak keep where there is only one interview source the editor considers to have SIGCOV, which is not enough for GNG even if it had enough independent and secondary content; another weak keep that also hinges on the single interview source being counted for GNG; a keep that doesn't understand that GNG requires coverage, not just selection as an interview subject; and two detailed deletes that describe why the interviews fail to count towards GNG. I think given how recent @David Eppstein's !vote was it might have been preferable to relist so that other editors could respond?
Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! I think it was simplest to relist here especially as it had only been relisted once and seven additional days at AfD is likely to be more fruitful than the same time at DRV, should you have chosen to go that route. While I agree with some of your points and don't think I'd have voted to keep, I feel like community consensus is fuzzy w/r/t independence and N:AUTHOR/N:ACADEMIC, and we saw some of that here. Curious to see if a consensus firms up. StarMississippi17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was wondering the same thing as JoelleJay, myself. As discussion was ongoing it looked like another relist could have been fruitful. Alternatively, it would have been possible (although obviously more controversial) to close this as delete citing the weakness of the keep !votes. I think the no-consensus close that you chose instead was the weakest of these three possibilities, and could well be turned over to a relist at DRV. As for your invocation of N:AUTHOR/N:ACADEMIC, there was no case made for N:ACADEMIC on the AfD whatsoever, and the one keep !vote based on N:AUTHOR turned out to be based on mistaken identity and should have been discounted. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're very welcome JoelleJay.
@David Eppstein While I'm not sure it would have been overturned to relist (vs. say re-nominate it in a shorter than typical window), there was definitely no need for DRV with an established editor in @JoelleJay asking for reconsideration (or you, had you been the one to come here first). Consensus is what we all want, regardless of what we think about a particular topic and 7 days at DRV+ a potential 7 at AfD again is a waste of community time and bandwidth. FWIW, I'd already relisted it about two hours before you commented here because I have no issue with more eyes.
Re: NACADEMIC, sorry to be clear that was my making the connection between the two where academic sources frequently aren't independent of the subject but as long as they back up citation/position, it generally results in a decision to retain. I see the same for author discussions although ideally all of the reviews are independent. The three of us know all too well that AfD isn't always the ideal world. StarMississippi20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 hours ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Star,
I'm a newbie and I'm lost at the moment. I'm creating a page for Rick Sanjek. I just submitted a draft for review and it was declined for copyright violations. Where do I start to find the cause of the violation(s) so that I can correct it/them? Thanks
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I agree with your closure of the WP:ANI dispute. I think that you and I agree that a dispute should only be pending in one forum at a time, and that there are content forums and conduct forums, and it is better to handle a dispute that has both content and conduct aspects in a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was the Autographs subpage of the user page of Marine 69-71. Maybe I should have provided a little more information to a busy admin who deals with a lot of controversies. At least two people went after the subpage. One nominated it for MFD, which is a content forum, and one of them went to WP:ANI. Now we are also seeing a RFAR to desysop him. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ahh yes. There was nothing further that could have come out of ANI as, at that moment, Administrators' Recall didn't exist and personally I'm not convinced it would be suited to this type of situation. And no worries on the context, I probably should have had more coffee as well. StarMississippi02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I started a draft on this fellow a while back and would be happy to have some help with it. (Also posted this on Mississippi Wikiproject talk page). I hipe all is well. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand the submission denial rationale for the submitted draft and I think she belongs in mainspace. Ripe for expansion no doubt. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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!
Latest comment: 10 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I agree that starting the AFD was what needed to be done. This was a clear case of gaming of titles, which is all too common, often with articles where the native form of the subject is a non-Latin writing system, which is a conduct issue. At the same time, if a conduct issue can be ignored by focusing on content, that is more likely to improve the encyclopedia. I have a difficult time assuming good faith when there is a name game, but a deletion discussion doesn't involve the conduct or good faith of the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
How cool! I didn't know about Inari and Fushimi Inari! Well, I may have seen the latter in a featured picture contest, but I never had an idea what it was about. Thank you very much, Star Mississippi and Netherzone! 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
That's cool. I had seen images of the Itsukushima Shrine, but I wasn't aware of crabs! Kasuga-taisha and Tōdai-ji are beautiful but if I have seen them, it must have been in a movie. I should change this one day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Done thanks as always for flagging @Axad12 Star Mississippi 13:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
