User talk:Star Mississippi

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

This page is automagically archived by a botservant. Really old archives are immediately below by year, month. 2010 and forward are in the box below. 2008:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec, 2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

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

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

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

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I am just burned out on AFDs. We have been losing discussion closers and participants (at least decent ones) for months now. I took a break two weeks ago and came back to see the absence of some regulars I had grown to rely on. I don't see any consensus on many discussions so I relist them, then I get flak for relisting discussions that an editor wants to be closed according to their point-of-view. And sometimes there is no further participation even after a couple of relistings. I think instead of nominating bad articles, a lot of marginal articles are getting nominated these days and there is just no conclusive discussion on what should happen with them.

About a year ago, I went to the Village Pump asking for more editors to participate in deletion discussions but I couldn't tell whether or not anyone responded to that plea. I'm out of ideas and what bothers me more than inconclusive discussions is that it often comes down to one or two editors determining whether or not an article is deleted and no handful of editors should have that much influence on the project's content. I'm thankful for help clearing out bad articles from the project but I see what I think are decent articles get deleted because they only had one or two sources, not three.

Any ideas on how to get more editors and admins to help out? I know that every single area of the project is short-staffed these days but this is an area that I spend time on so it's what is on my mind, at least tonight. Thanks for letting me vent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding @Liz.

I think I caught part of your hiatus when I was surprised to find unclosed discussions when I checked the log. There haven't been enough admins for years, but I do think AIV and UAA are also seeing backlogs as well, as you noted. During this window of time when we don't have enough participation, I really think AfD should not be used for uncontroversial mergers as it doesn't really get more eyes and doesn't help. I've been at DRV recently for not being a magician, but I also understand the users' frustration on both that and because N/C just kicks the can down the road.

Going to try and think on this for more ideas, but in the mean time I absolutely second this. Star Mississippi 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my message was more emotionally charged than typical talk page messages are on Wikipedia. I sometimes spend an inordinate amount of time working on the project and that, combined with not getting a full night's sleep, can result in viewing a situation as more dire than it seems in the morning.

I've just been concerned that thoughtful participation in AFDs requires more effort than many editors want to go to so our pool of editors who regularly participate in deletion discussions in a productive way has dwindled over the past year. And I can understand the frustration of spending a couple of hours looking for sources and then finding the article is deleted any way. I'm less sure of why admins circulate out of helping with AFD closures except it's no fun being summoned to Deletion review or having editors who are angry about an outcome come to your User talk page. But I can think of at least 8 admins I regularly encountered on the daily AFD log page that have moved on to other activities that they find more pleasant or fulfiling.

While I'm so grateful for their time, I do worry that the editors who are very savvy about AFD participation have an outsized influence on what articles are kept or deleted. And I don't think that a lot of editors realize that deletion decisions can come down to one or two editors. Of course, the same could be said of CSD and PROD tagging but it's more obvious at AFD. Any way, I'll stop here because I've left a lot of content here. Of course I could have emailed these remarks but I was hoping that other editors might see this and offer opinions on how to address the editor/admin shortage. Thanks and I hope you have a nice weekend....we have a prediction of more snow here overnight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite new to AfD and wanted to help out with relistings and closings as NAC, with some occasional !votes too. I kinda like the clerking jobs, but like Liz pointed out, some of my closings got challenged (mostly bc I might have misread the consensus) and that gave me a little setback. Hence I took a little break from AfD but I can see that there is very little participation.

On the top of my head, I can suggest an idea. I'm not sure how much it will work, but we can get Signpost to do a feature on AfD, with some statistics and stuff, plus a paragraph on the demand for more participation from sysops and editors alike. Maybe that can alert the community about this. I used to write for Signpost, but it's been years I went down that road now. So we can try that out prolly.

I'm going for a WikiBreak due to an IRL situation for a couple of weeks where I might not get access to internet. I'll drop by wheneverI can in between. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take care of yourself first & foremost @The Herald. Not doing that is what leads to editor burnout, which is a part of why we're here. Also, a 20+ year project and people moving into other life phases where they're not as active. For me, I came back during COVID lockdown after years of declining time and interest in the project.

@Liz I think the other part of it is we've lost some powerhouses in the last few years: Possibly, Nosbagbear,Eagleash, Anthony Appleyard, DGG, Vami_V recently. It's a lot of regular participation that is just gone. Especially with history merges. I wonder whether we're back filling. I also feel like project maturity is a part of it. Similar to their being a much smaller percentage of articles needing creating, besides the old backlogs that @Boleyn is frequently clearing (with much appreciation), there aren't a ton of articles that must now go to AfD. Folks persist in bringing them and the huge pile of nominations is just insurmountable. Another issue is the drive by participation & sniping on both sides. There are several editors whose participation is not healthy (to them, nor to the project), but topic banning isn't going to help anything either. Vent away any time here. Star Mississippi 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @OwenX who I E/Ced with a few times while trying to tackle today's log for their thoughts. Star Mississippi 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, Star Mississippi!

Liz, please don't give up! You are one of the most dependable AfD closers, and the gentle nudges toward consensus in your relistings are exactly what we need. I, too, am not happy to see a decline in participation by great AfD regulars like TimothyBlue and XOR'easter. I hope this is temporary. For my part, I'll try to do more, both in terms of AfD participation and closing, especially the heated, contentious ones that no one wants to touch. I don't mind being raked over the coals at DRV every once in a while, although I do appreciate the support I get there from you and from Star Mississippi--or the constructive criticism, as the case warrants. I check the backlog daily, and try to close at least one tricky AfD a day, in addition to a handful of straightforward ones. I don't know if I'll be able to keep up this pace in April through June, which is the busiest time for me, work-wise, but I'll try do my part. I am in no position to preach, having just come back from a long wiki-hiatus myself (it was nice to be greeted back by you!). Don't push yourself to the point of burnout. Lighten your load until things feel more balanced. None of this is worth losing sleep over. Owen× ☎ 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, for what it's worth, I've regularly gone to check the unclosed AfD list these past few weeks and only rarely found any discussions left for me to close. So at least from my perspective as a fellow closer, we seem to have a handle on the closure side of the question. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just burned out a bit, but I will be back; I try and help on the difficult ones, especially BLPs. NPP and AfD both give me the feeling the water is cresting the dam, but I have no solutions. @Liz: thank you for all you do at AfD.  // Timothy :: talk  21:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear you'll be back, TimothyBlue! Your well-reasoned views in AfDs usually cut through the clutter. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to dip my toe in NPP and even as a decently-tenured AfC reviewer, I am lost there. Happy to help if there's a good tutorial @TimothyBlue

@OwenX I always appreciate your insight as well. There are some really messy ones lately. Star Mississippi 03:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's a genuine need to close AfDs, I would possibly consider nominating to be an admin at some point. I've just figured there's more of a need for participants than closers, and I'm trying to spend less time on here at the moment, but I'd be happy to help. SportingFlyer T·C 11:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, there is more of a need for participants familiar with our P&G than there is for closers. And your participation in AfDs, SportingFlyer, has been extremely helpful to me, as I'm sure it has been to other closers. Owen× ☎ 15:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there's both. Closures have been challenging and challenged (and I have no issue with folks challenging them, it's well within their right and other than the obvious trolls and other bad actors all I've dealt with have merit even if I endorse my close). Look at the DRVs we've been in this week, both the current one and Lion of Oz. Especially the current one, the DRV is better attended than the discussion. Seconding @OwenX that I so appreciate your input @SportingFlyer because you make your case, it's not just a !vote. Lion is a mess and part of why I don't fault @GSS (courtesy ping due to mention) for their close is it had lingered so why not give it a go. I said similar to @The Herald above whose input I also value. Thanks both Star Mississippi 16:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs are very essential to keep in check for some bad closes and I'm looking at the silver lining of the current DRV. Like Star Mississippi said, it had higher turnout than the nom itself, which was surprising and makes me happy. Now with those two redirect !votes, it'd have been an easy consensus and a close. But yeah, I agree that we need more participants like SF and Owen, someone with clear cut knowledge of P&Gs. Closers aren't the dire need at hand now, but participants are. To be frank, I am learning more and more about P&Gs right now by closing and I am only selectively !voting in obvious outcome discussions. But once I am confident enough, I'll start participanting more in the discussions actively. In the meanwhile, we can think about the Signpost feature I talked about earlier. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald: If it helps, here's my AfD procedure - it's not really formal, but it's how I approach things. 1. Look at the actual article. Are there sources? Are there any sources which look like they clearly pass WP:GNG? Does it look like it obviously violates WP:NOT? Is the topic about a person or about a "thing"? If it's about a person or about a business, I'm immediately more cautious in terms of !keeping, especially if there's any promotional element. 2. Perform a source search if there aren't good sources in the article and WP:NOT isn't flagged. If the topic's not from an English speaking country, I'll first look to see if there are other wikipedias with the same article and check the sourcing there - it's usually not as good, but often can be very helpful. Then I'll perform a web search using appropriate search engines, though I feel like these have gotten a lot worse even in the past couple years. Google Books and Google Scholar have been the most helpful recently, along with DuckDuckGo's ability to search by country. If I still strike out, and I feel like there's a good chance it's still notable, I'll find local or historical newspapers and perform a search there. If by this point there's nothing, I'm a clear !delete. Most of the time there are only a few sources of varying quality and at that point it's a WP:COMMONSENSE judgment decision. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS...comments like these are the reason why I believe we are immortal and Wikipedia community will never die. Thanks from the bottom of my heart for going this extra mile for the practical approach to AfD. You have my !support in your RfA already. Thanks again. Imma star this message, SF. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding @SportingFlyer's great advice, I often see @HighKing drop useful guidelines in organizational related discussions because of the depth required in N:ORG/CORP. A company gets coverage for existing, but it's not helpful if it's not of the depth needed. See also event listings at schools and cultural organizations. @The Herald you should feel the love. You've done solid work. Being taken to DRV is almost a right of passage and those closes aren't wrong so much as complex. Essentially the same thing I just said re: GSS' close at Lion Star Mississippi 17:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs though are relatively rare and attract a specific group of regulars. There are a lot of AfDs, and I'm at the point now where I'm only going to participate in AfD areas where I feel comfortable !voting. I think it's good DRVs receive a lot of participation as it's the appeals process. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here, but I am in the same general place as you, and I am more likely to weigh in when there is some dispute in the issues I follow or when there is a more obvious answer. - Enos733 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related issue

I wish we had something between PROD and AfD. Because of the rules of PROD and soft deletion, we have AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catabasis Pharmaceuticals. (I'm going to drop Liz a courtesy note since she doesn't do pings). She did what she had to do since it's ineligible for soft deletion, but no one is actually arguing for retention because no one cares about a random, non notable company. Enter my IAR close because another relist was pointless. AfD reform is hot topic and rightfully so, but we really need meaningful deletion reform because I'm not sure the process works for a 20 year old project. Star Mississippi 18:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost impossible to change policy these days. People are treating our guidelines as if they were Scripture, not to be messed with by mortals. "The system works just fine" or "This is a solution looking for a problem" are the most likely responses you'll get for a proposal to change things. The last meaningful guideline change we got was NSPORTS2022, which doesn't really add much to the sacred GNG. I doubt the current proposals about RfA will end with much more than just, "We should really be more civilized on RfAs", but I hope I'm wrong.

As for AfDs, yes, I see your point about these marginal situations. I doubt we'd get policy changed, but if we reach a consensus among us here on how to handle those, and support such closes on DRV, it will in time become a de facto standard practice. I don't like invoking IAR, but if an unsourced article has been tagged for a while, and the AfD receives no legitimate argument to keep, nor a sensible ATD, it is within the discretion of the closing admin to delete even if a prior PROD was declined. This option is even described as acceptable in WP:NOQUORUM, so we're not really introducing anything radical here. Such deletions are rarely overturned at DRV. Owen× ☎ 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I will have to admit I was lurking here, because yes: I won't use PROD now because of this issue (and well done and thank you for the IAR close). I PRODed something some time back and, as always seems to happen, someone removed the PROD with just an edsum saying this should go to AfD so then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwaun Troed-rhiw-seiri a Llyn Mynydd-gorddu sat for weeks at AfD with not a single !vote - not even from the PROD remover - and in the end we kept an article that was not about one place but two - neither of which can be found on a map, although both apparently have some 🌷 in common. Just removing the ineligibility for soft deletion would seem to be a small but valuable change. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS2022 was wonderful but also a nightmare. For about six months after I nearly refused to close the sports discussions because it felt like the close was being relitigated in each discussion. I think (hope) it has settled since although some still seem oddly contentious. GEOLAND seems to be on the cusp of... something, although I'm not sure exactly what.

@Sirfurboy I skip PROD entirely for certain things: schools, athletes, places. I think to both your & @OwenX's points we could end up with a middle ground somehow because there has to be sanity. There was another Welsh "place" recently. I can't remember if I closed it or not but it was another "no one cares but process says". Thanks both! Star Mississippi 00:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I generally avoid closing GEOLAND AfDs. Maybe we need NSPORTS and GEOLAND specialist closers. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance for a relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koumac Airport? It still seems like an unresolved debate to me, given that of the three keep !votes, one is WP:PERX and another is just WP:ITSNOTABLE. Pilaz (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it closing any other way, but happy to avoid bureaucracy and have done so. Sorry for the delay! Star Mississippi 01:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for relisting regardless! Pilaz (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you putting that thread out of its misery. I do have a mild complaint slash request about the closing statement. I may send you email about it in a little while after I give this some more thought. If I do I would not be expecting an email back, just either a rewording or not as seems best to you. It's a "just saying" kind of thing with a slight tinge of privacy concerns

But seriously, thanks again Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to reconsider if needed. I'll keep an eye out @Elinruby, but if you wouldn't mind dropping a note here when you've sent it. Sometimes the notices here don't make it in p ings. Star Mississippi 02:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I praised you in a section on my talk page that someone startec based (I think) on that closing statement. That may shed some light on what I am talking about. People don't click the freaking links. Thank you for being someone who does.

i will drop you a note, sure. trying to come up with a better idea first. Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming email Elinruby (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I've seen it, will respond tomorrow when I have time/brain cells to give it the attention it deserves. Star Mississippi 03:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Haven't seen one but I am not on the device that gets email. At your leisure if you haven't responded yet. I said what I needed to and am content. Comment below is regardless of your response Elinruby (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm always happy to help. And really, reading diffs shouldn't be a high ask.

The lack of response is my fault. I ended up working away from my primary device. I'll be in touch soon or at the weekend I promise. Apologies Star Mississippi 15:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nono I really meant it when I said that I said what I said and get to it when you can. No rush. Back to doing regular stuff with sane people Elinruby (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up I just declined a draft for Draft:ALASH online which is the alternative website address for Egov.Press I think. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. Thanks!

I updated the SPI. I have a feeling we're going to play whack a promotion for some time. I'm not going to reject the draft as I'm too Involved, but someone should. Star Mississippi 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		for actually clicking on the diffs Elinruby (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star Mississippi, you probably remember me from joining the ANI report you filed against another user, which led to sanctions. Recently, at Talk:La Rambla Building (and even at another user's talk page) that same user appears to be badgering other editors to try to push for the implementation of a challenged edit request. By now, there's a total of 5 of us involved over there, do you think this is a problem? Any advice or assistance in dealing with the situation would be much appreciated. Left guide (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay and thanks for flagging. I will go look and comment there if I can help.

That editor is unfortunately a long term challenge of unwillingness to comply with expected standards as I assume you well know. Star Mississippi 15:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the delay, anything helps, thanks for your input there. And yeah I agree with the last sentence; this is certainly an editor to keep an eye on because it seems that if it's not one thing it's another, so the more eyes the better. He'll try practically any trick in the book to get his way; for what it's worth, some of his self-disclosed ancestors he made articles about were high-ranking politicians (and in my opinion are the few that might actually be notable for Wikipedia) so maybe it's in his blood. The overall pattern looks rooted in WP:OWNERSHIP on these specific sets of articles, which you seemed to allude to in the ANI. The article-space block has made things noticeably calmer (though not entirely peaceful as evidenced by this incident) for the rest of us to have more time and space to do other things on Wikipedia and real life, definitely a good call on your part to make that proposal. Hopefully the behavior will improve and these recurring time-sinks will go away soon. Anyways, that's probably enough for now, thanks again for assisting. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*… Left guide (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the on wiki time for another AN/I this week, but I very much see one coming. Honestly not sure if this is sheer stubborn or CIR (with a side of PAID) cc @Netherzone Star Mississippi 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable; gaining traction at that last ANI was a time-consuming and exhausting experience. Honestly, one legitimate concern I have by this point is that the editor victimized in the initial incident may have felt driven off the project by this behavior; they were a near-daily prolific good-faith editor nowhere to be found now. That was a very jarring incident. I know if I was in their shoes, I wouldn't feel welcome on this site at all. Left guide (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That editor has some complex history of jumping in to the deep end before they're fully aware of the steps needed (see their tenure clerking ANI) despite meaning well. I'm not sure it was Gregg's behavior so much as waiting for the eyes on them to lessen. I think/hope they'll be back Star Mississippi 10:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the additional insight. I still believe that the badgering responses were far out-of-proportion to the mistakes made, especially given that the self-reverts were requested by another editor. And I hope they'll be back too; I have much respect for those volunteers willing to take on large amounts of edit requests due to the backlogs, especially the COI ones. I've looked at edit requests, and paid company editors have a tendency to post long walls of text that I don't have the patience to sift through. Left guide (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the newer editor is probably just taking a wikibreak - their user page has a hatnote that they are in school. I don't know if they are based in the U.S. but Spring break generally is held sometime between March 11 and April 1, and they may have had mid-term exams or papers due. I think they will be back, I certainly hope so!

Re: the other editor, I definitely think CIR is at play along with IDHT, and GAMING.. I also think that the "stubbornness" has to do with a sense of pride - in local community and in family. Those certainly can be positive attributes for a person to have, but are displaced here as a form of SOAPBOXING with a "side" of COI. It's exhausting and a long term time sink. Sigh... Netherzone (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star Mississippi. For nearly 12 (!!!) years now, 98.186.55.18 has created hundreds of article & template drafts that were rejected per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. He was warned God knows how many times, blocked many times, and was extremely hostile when banned. He's an absolute pain to the sports WikiProjects (both college and professional) and at this point there is 0% chance he'll ever change. This editor exhibits no required competence, and is an objective detriment to Wikipedia. He's evaded blocks by using different IPs (e.g. 98.186.54.177 // 70.179.216.206 // 68.103.78.155 // 68.102.39.189 // 2600:8803:7A00:19:F9E8:259A:179F:F5C1 // 68.102.40.154 // 68.102.61.195 ... I could link even more).

In May 2022 I alerted you to his inadequate competence back then, and two years later we're still dealing with the same shit. It's never going away; I'm personally fed up.

You've been a great administrator for nearly 16 years. You may need to defer the request I'm about to make to another admin per being previously WP:INVOLVED with this IP, but: Can you please permanently block any or all of the aforementioned IPs? SportsGuy789 (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsGuy789 Well, there's no way to block an IP address permanently, considering that there might be other people also using it. Definitely possible to block normal accounts even if someone else uses it, but certainly not IPs. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the solution? Can't there be like a year-long block at least? SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Year-long blocks are certainly possible. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do that on 98.186.55.18 then? SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SportsGuy789. @NoobThreePointOh is correct in that we can't indef IPs because they change. I'm not declining to act because of Involvement, but rather range blocks are really beyond my familiarity if they're block evading. For now I've reblocked 98. You may need to take it to AN/I unless I have a TPS who has better ideas on the range block side. Star Mississippi 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help with a block on 98 to start. A lot of those other IPs are old and haven't been disruptively editing for years, so I'm cautiously optimistic he won't be using those again. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you've dealt with this. I trusted your report, of course, and vaguely remembered but as soon as they got low-key abusive again I was like oh yeah, that one. Yuck. Star Mississippi 18:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Eeesh. It can get pretty ugly at times. Let's just hope that they don't strike again, because the damage that accumulates might become even worse. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but did you mean to type "disagree" where you typed "agree"? PamD 16:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Fixed. Thanks so much for flagging. Star Mississippi 16:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Star Mississippi, can I take you up on the refund offer at WP:Articles for deletion/Hira Mosque? (I'd assume to Draft:Hira Mosque) The sources I supplied at AfD (an academic journal and a foreign language source) would take some time and effort for me to comb through, so I'd venture to say the notability is inconclusive, but it's a topic I have some personal interest in. I might merge some info into other articles either way (I appreciate the suggestions in your closing statement). Also, is there a ja.wiki article? I can't remember, I should've noted that before deletion, sorry about that. Thanks. Left guide (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're all set. Per Wikidata, there's ja:行徳モスク and a few other languages, alas none of which I read.

Thanks for reading my close as intended as I definitely think there's a home for this information, there just wasn't the sourcing to necessarily merit a standalone. Let me know if you need anything else on this. Happy to help. Star Mississippi 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) Left guide (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I hope you are having a good weekend. While you closed this AFD discussion as Merge, because you mention two separate articles, the article under discussion doesn't have a Merge tag on it and the Merge target articles are missing it, too. I don't work with Merges so I rely on XFDcloser to do this tagging and so I don't know the correct template to use. But I think once the article is tagged, the article will appear in the correct categories so editors can see that it needs to be merged.

Also, thanks for letting me know about the discussion (above). It's interesting reading. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I did that as a custom because I learned (from you?) that merger close with A or B breaks either the script or creates a discussion page for a non existent article A or B. I can manually tag it, but without a target, I think even {{merge-to}} will fail. I'm about to log off for the evening, but will look into it tomorrow unless you have sorted it out. I don't think there's an easy answer. And no worries, thought you'd enjoy where your question/comment went. Star Mississippi 02:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh never mind, @Stephen sorted it out for both us. Star Mississippi 02:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God bless talk page stalkers! It seems like there is always someone who knows how to fix a problem. You definitely didn't learn it from me, I don't know how to close an AFD discussion with a decision to Merge to more than one article. I think I have history merged 4 or 5 times and have not manually merged any articles so I'm not familiar with the Merge templates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!

I have some vague recollection of in your G8 patrolling you had to delete one that me/the script created such as Talk:Topic A or B. I hate history merges! I've tried but usually end up b0rking. Star Mississippi 10:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is technically possible to "unmerge" articles if a mistake has been made but I wouldn't know how to do it. So, I've only done clear cut cases where it is suitable, generally when an editor has created a new category that is identical to one that has existed for a long time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know by now that the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Techspressionism has become a mess in more ways than one. I've been trying to help organize and keep track of it, but I'm unable to wrap my head around this edit. My best guess is that part of MarioCCult's original comment is now erroneously embedded into Scribe1791's comment, but I'm not 100% sure. If I had caught it at the time, I would've just reverted. Courtesy ping Netherzone also. Left guide (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think @Netherzone has fixed it while I was offline. It's super confusing, as I think AfD is for newer editors. Social post aside, I think they're contributing in good faith, they just don't know what's required. I'm glad Scribe allowed me to close up their comment as I think some folks read it as "he's done, let me add my response". Star Mississippi 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't fix it because I can't unravel the scramble. Netherzone (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like User:YordleSquire's short comment may have been plopped in the middle of someone else's longer comment (?). I may be wrong about this, because SPAs comments going in odd places. Thanks for clerking to the both of you. Netherzone (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly offline through Sunday, apologies. Thanks @Netherzone for moving the Arabic? !vote over as well. Star Mississippi 23:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like YordleSquire's short comment is in between two separate comments made at separate times by Scribe1791, so I don't think that's the problem. The user with the Arabic !vote actually found their way to the main AfD page and posted it there themselves. Thanks to both of you for assisting as well. Enjoy your time away Star Mississippi, I'll continue keeping an eye on that AfD as my time allows. Left guide (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A relatively inexperienced editor innocuously accepted his AfC submission cited only to four primary source government publications and an unreliable source; likely would've been declined by an experienced reviewer. And now it looks like he's trying to sneak his next one into mainspace by WP:CANVASSING that same editor. Told you he'll try practically any trick in the book… Left guide (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. I need a magic wand. Thanks for flagging @Left guide Star Mississippi 02:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to waste effort diff digging but Greg has been warned previously about canvassing trying to disrupt an AfD nomination made on one of his articles. He recruited people who he felt would vote the way he wants and specifically wrote comment asking them to vote keep. Graywalls (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has been warned for everything unfortunately it doesn't change his behavior. Star Mississippi 14:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBAN I suggested might be effective. No participation on Henderson family related, broadly construed. No participation on Monterey County, California related (including Carmel-by-the-Sea which is within) and perhaps no San Jose. Graywalls (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 has warned them again.

@Graywalls I agree, but to the same extent he's not taking on your/@Netherzone's feedback about stronger drafts I'm not sure he'll abide by it. Star Mississippi 18:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it better to post something on his talk page for tracking. However, in his and the reviewer's defense regarding Messina Orchard, I have always thought places listed at NRHP were essentially automatically notable because they generally will pass AfD. On the flip side things like Draft:Mary L. Hamlin...eh..."nope" is the only word and the fact he kept resubmitting and pushing, adding frankly shitty sources was time wasting for all involved and appears to his track record. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I wouldn't go so far as to say automatically. Like virtually every subject notability guideline, WP:GEOFEAT says presumed which isn't the same as guaranteed. IMO, there should still be at least some effort to show real independent secondary GNG-compliant coverage, which doesn't appear to be the case for Messina Orchard. But I agree that the Mary L. Hamlin saga was something else, doesn't seem to take "no" for an answer. Left guide (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide:, The form cites quite a few good sources, usually. Although, the article shouldn't look like a mirror of the form. An article could meet notability yet be two sentences long. Superfluous contents can always be pulled out. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Must've been WP:Articles for deletion/Carmel Valley Historical Society; even had the audacity to bold the word keep in the requests… Left guide (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Did you drink a pot of coffee tonight? You sure closed a lot of AFD discussions. Wikipedia could use your help every day (or night). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I caught the log at a good moment and I hope it makes up for when I have and am about to be offline again. The volume you process @Liz amazes me. And I know I see only a small percentage of them. Star Mississippi 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin for the user, i thought to bring it to your notice that another user most definitely an UPE who has a long history of creating non-notable articles has recreated this article which you salted under another name here. Let me know if any action can be taken against the new author. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for flagging @Jamiebuba. I've blocked the "new" account. I haven't actioned the G4 as there are so many versions and my on wiki time is limited to evaluate, although I have no doubt it's a bad faith creation. Star Mississippi 01:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your time. I appreciate. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, and it looks like @Liz handled the G4 so we should be all set. Star Mississippi 12:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so i noticed! I have a feeling they may return. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a number of 2024 User talk:Doncram talk page messages from you. Don't know if you're aware of it, but Dncram died July 9, 2023. Please see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2023. — Maile (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, thanks We've been using his Talk as a scratch pad to publish the drafts he left behind, and in some cases give him AfC credit. Do you think that should take place elsewhere? Star Mississippi 01:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I think you are doing it the best way. Ever since I read of Doncram's death, I've been wondering who will fill his shoes in publishing the newer listings. He was always just there, taking care of the new listings. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Doncram#List_of_drafts has his WIPs that we know of.

If there are others, or others you think he would have worked on,feel free to add. My interests interacted with his so I've picked up some but I know we're missing others. Star Mississippi 01:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, I knew what was out there because he had already listed them. That's what I'm talking about. Who is going to keep those new listings up to date? — Maile (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but happy to try and dig into it. I'm going to be offline much of this week but will join when back. Star Mississippi 02:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ma'am/Sir. Do you remember me? We have met several times in DRV for the review of articles of ITV actors. Sir/Ma'am we recently submitted a DRV of the actress Priyanka Choudhary and the outcome was that the previous deletions were endorsed. Sir/Ma'am what can we do so that we get a fair chance to create an article of Priyanka Choudhary in Wikipedia? We tried all possible means by maintaining WP:CIVILity and WP:good faith. We do not want to repeat the mistakes which her earlier fans made but we do wish for a fair chance. 117.209.242.154 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The consensus here Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Priyanka_Choudhary_(closed) is that Choudhary is not yet notable. Thank you for being civil and assuming good faith, but that doesn't overcome the issues raised with respect to WP:NACTOR and the sourcing required to pass it, which Choudhary currently lacks. It's challenging as a fan when you believe someone sh ould have coverage. In closing @S_Marshall offered an option of another project. Did you think about that?

Alternatively, you can continue working on the draft and add new sourcing and consider submitting it no sooner than next year unless sourcing changes significantly. Star Mississippi 12:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worked hard on it and you’ve not advised of why it was legal to remove it. Thank you. 75.105.37.98 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 75. This is your only edit. Can you please give me a hint as to the article topic so I can try to track it down? Star Mississippi 02:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Star Mississippi, hope you are doing well, I would like to bring to your kind notice that deletion discussion of Isha Malviya i.e Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isha Malviya (2nd nomination) is open till now and has not been closed yet, it was opened on March 10, 2024. Kindly look into it as it has surpassed the specified time limit many days before. Thankyou .Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note @Imsaneikigai. The discussion was closed while I was offline so this appears resolved. Star Mississippi 01:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this discussion completely fell through the cracks. Open for 3 weeks and never relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I needed a clarity, can I open a new deletion discussion, because in my opinion the article Isha Malviya clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Since the previous deletion nomination was not listed correctly, many people did not participate and did not get a clear consensus. Thankyou Imsaneikigai (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Liz for flagging that. I hadn't looked closely. @Imsaneikigai before you do that (it would beWP:DRV), I'm pinging @Deb as closing admin for their thoughts.

@Imsaneikigai are you the same editor who raised #Priyanka Choudhary above? These articles seem somehow related and I'm not otherwise sure how you found me. Thanks all Star Mississippi 11:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that, but since it wasn't done properly first time round, I feel it's only right it should be possible to list it again. I'm taking note also of comments made during the latest discussion, suggesting doubtful motivation. Deb (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No i am not the one who startedthe Priyanka Choudhary conversation above. Since Priyanka Choudhary and Isha Malviya had the same career graphs, i had taken a look at deletion discussion of Priyanka Choudhary to have a gist of the reasons cited for her deletion so that it may be helpful for me to give similar reasons for deletion of Isha Malviya. There i found that IP and stalked them to reach you Imsaneikigai (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were missed. I did have a question for you but two days later? I completely can't remember what it was. Life passes you by fast on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Not fully back yet, but getting there with a window of less travel. Hope you had a good Easter if you observe @Liz.

Feel free to leave the question for me next time. I play catch up when I return, or try. Star Mississippi 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Star Mississippi; there appears to be a rather messy situation at the Jeremy Bloom article. Two brand new SPAs are persistently edit-warring to force in their preferred version against about four or five established editors who have serially contested the edits. Also note that the Fewlers account was created 17:17 on 29 March 2024 less than 20 minutes after Jeremybloomfan's last edits were reverted, which raises suspicion of sock and/or meatpuppetry. Please consider applying page blocks and/or extended-confirmed protection (the accounts appear to be auto-confirmed) or any other remedies as needed, thanks. Left guide (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging @Left guide and apologies for the delay while I was offline. @EddieHugh had taken care of the out of process edits and I've E/C'ed it for a week. I'm not watching it right now and my on wiki time remains limited so please ping me if further action is needed. Star Mississippi 23:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you both for helping out! Left guide (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the link on the closing note to commons isn't piped properly I think. It was a closing note, hence I didn't want to change it. Can you drop by? It's missing a :commons: ig. Thanks, and welcome back :) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so weird that the second one worked, but the first didn't! Thanks so much for flagging it. THank you! Hope to be fully back soon. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 19:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an AfD discussion was relisted for lack of a consensus and/or lack of policy-based arguments, and subsequently a clear consensus formed, can it be closed a little before an additional 168 hours have elapsed since the relisting?

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RadioactiveBoulevardier

Yes, a relist doesn't require a full AfD run. It can be closed when someone assesses consensus has formed. Sometimes that's soon after the relist when it catches more editors' eyes. Let me know if you need more information. Star Mississippi 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They should make that clear on WP:Deletion process. If I have any other questions I’ll be sure to let you know.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to answer any time @RadioactiveBoulevardier but I do think it's fairly clear there where it says A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting a further seven days. Do you think it sould be phrased differently? Not disagreeing, just not sure what you mean or if I'm missing something. Star Mississippi 01:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that line. I thought I had read things thoroughly but I guess not…maybe I should get more sleep instead of indulging my Wikiholism lol RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, and your music posts I frequently see on my watch. I hope you're well @Gerda Arendt Star Mississippi 02:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
350		Christianity in Pakistan (talk)	Add sources
16		Renaissance College (talk)	Add sources
18		Sarata (talk)	Add sources
801		Endonym and exonym (talk)	Add sources
8		City One station (talk)	Add sources
35		MicroSIP (talk)	Add sources
861		Taiwan under Japanese rule (talk)	Cleanup
918		Web development (talk)	Cleanup
15		Loveland High School (Colorado) (talk)	Cleanup
36		English Schools Foundation (talk)	Expand
6		Brienz/Brinzauls (talk)	Expand
11		Y Cymro (talk)	Expand
326		Ruthenian language (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
201		Palatine German language (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
48		Momotarō no Umiwashi (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
79		Manayunk, Philadelphia (talk)	Merge
207		Obey (clothing) (talk)	Merge
1		Satyanarayan (disambiguation) (talk)	Merge
74		Place names in India (talk)	Wikify
95		C3 Presents (talk)	Wikify
32		Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism (talk)	Wikify
5		Seeds of Hope Publishers (talk)	Orphan
2		Phurlak (talk)	Orphan
1		Romanian exonyms (Ukraine) (talk)	Orphan
72		Return to Nim's Island (talk)	Stub
7		Mélanie Meillard (talk)	Stub
21		Alagwa people (talk)	Stub
3		WYAP-LP (talk)	Stub
4		Tholo language (talk)	Stub
15		Isla de Las Palomas (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided NOT to say something on a talk page about that whole ... whatever it is or was ... and buried it in my sand box, but forgot to unlink you. Sorry. Feel free to read it if you like, but there is nothing there we haven't already discussed, and no action is required from you at this point. I have given up and am sorry I defended the disciplinary processes of en-wikipedia at Meta at this point, but you are not the cause of that. At all. Thanks again for all the fish. Sorry to ping for nothing, Hope your busy-ness is fun and not stressful. Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll have a look at it in the coming days and see if I can be of help. I'm also not positive I don't owe you a response elsewhere.

Busy-ness is of the positive variety, thankfully. Some travel, personal obligations and a busy time at work. Plus there are days it's too nice to be indoors and online. Thanks for checking in. It's very much appreciated Star Mississippi 02:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Owe"is not the right word. I sent you email once because there was a mild privacy concern about something and I think you were a little concerned. It was ok though, used to it at this point. Just noticed today that there was a whole ANI where I was *again* misleadingly quoted, shrug. This was so unsurprising that I wasn't even notified. And JoelleJay apparently had been going through it too, since she thought he was talking about her. Another day on Wikipedia. Enjoying medieval Algeria but I really want to get it out the door now ;) All is reasonably well and weather here has eased out of omgomgomg ;) No reply was expected and definitely none owed. Next comes the lilac.

The Meta thing was SlowKing4 claiming to be some sort of tragic hero, eyeroll. Apparently administrators here insta-ban at the drop of a hat. Har har har. I begged to differ You were not mentioned in that refutation, btw. Drop of a hat, lol. Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to politely point out that whilst I removed my comment, I did not apologise

Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to amend my comment, I mistook rescind as an apology Star Mississippi 02:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated Jack4576 (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

I was in the process of relisting this discussion when you closed it. I found both of the editors who participated here were completely off-the-mark. There was no sockpuppet activity in this article or any previously deleted versions of it (although there has been some UPE) so I have no idea where that came from and the other editor has only 45 edits on the project. No one examined the sources provided by the article creator into the discussion. We really need some of our regular AFD participants to offer their opinion since while the nominator is fine, I have no confidence in the other editors' opinions here. I hope you might consider reverting and relisting this discussion. I rarely make this request (unless it's an NAC closure) but I think we need some fuller examination and evaluation of sources for this article. Thanks for considering this request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and always happy to. Thanks for flagging

No harm in another week although the last relist didn't bring on any input. Star Mississippi 01:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The four sources I mentioned are articles and a TV documentary entirely devoted to covering the subject, so the assertions (by editors who do not read Thai) that they were mere passing mentions were plainly incorrect. The nom did not respond to my challenging of their misunderstanding, and neither of the two delete !votes addressed any of the sources I identified. I don't quite see how it could be concluded that "Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Unfortunately it's not sufficient to assume editors' language knowledge or source access especially with access to translation tools and that your/IP 180 assessment was the arbiter of depth when other experience editors came to a different conclusion. If you believe I closed it incorrectly, you're welcome to file a deletion review and I'd welcome more eyes on it. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 18:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
14		Dutch exonyms (talk)	Add sources
507		Ford Mustang Mach-E (talk)	Add sources
425		Ergodicity (talk)	Add sources
37		German exonyms (talk)	Add sources
289		Italian orthography (talk)	Add sources
153		Ethnonym (talk)	Add sources
1,164		Creativity (talk)	Cleanup
460		Jonathan Turley (talk)	Cleanup
20		Tin Hau, Hong Kong (talk)	Cleanup
96		NMB48 (talk)	Expand
69		Varda Space Industries (talk)	Expand
302		Education in Canada (talk)	Expand
2,792		Academic grading in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
22		City and Country School (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
247		Education in Bangladesh (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
93		Physalia (talk)	Merge
74		Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great (talk)	Merge
607		Consensual non-monogamy (talk)	Merge
9		Cassaro (talk)	Wikify
450		Trump–Ukraine scandal (talk)	Wikify
38		Welsh syntax (talk)	Wikify
3		Peont (talk)	Orphan
1		Ye Qing (politician) (talk)	Orphan
6		Sagga (village) (talk)	Orphan
6		Lufeng, Yunnan (talk)	Stub
11		Tonneruzu no Minasan no Okage deshita (talk)	Stub
4		WVGV (talk)	Stub
3		Death of the Cosmic (talk)	Stub
3		Shatter and Fall (talk)	Stub
26		Apache Jena (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it only took five months but JayCubby walked himself into the block we all saw coming (cc @Cryptic, @Girth Summit, @Espresso Addict) @Primefac not sure if it's private info or if there's anything unstale but JayCubby seemed to potentially be tied to Ladyoftrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' shenanigans albeit not enough then for a non fishing SPI. Flagging if helpful. No worries if not. Star Mississippi 01:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw their userpage get kicked out of Category:Indexed pages. Couldn't remember why it looked familiar. —Cryptic 07:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cryptic, I saw your comment and had to look up what pages were put in this category and why. Why would an editor want Google to show their Wikipedia User pages? This seems out of order for editors to do but I guess it's their call. It just seems like an odd choice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a major vector for spam. Pesky new page patrollers keep deleting or draftifying your mainspace seo instead of letting google see it? Just put it on your userpage and index it there! There's even a handy button in the visual editor to teach you how to do it in one click!

Watching Category:Indexed pages used to get me about dozen g11s per day. Less of an issue after Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 153#Prevent new users from allowing search engine indexing of user pages and Special:AbuseFilter/930, though since we tied it to the wrong permission there's still an occasional problem - extendedconfirmed isn't enough by itself to make a page googlable by any other method. —Cryptic 08:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]