This is an archive of past discussions with User:Missvain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Missvain, you decided that the The Cambridge Working Group should be merged with Gain of Function Research. Another editor added the group to the research page, and I improved it by adding content and sources, and also expanding the section to include the opposing advocacy group. Now the group has been deleted from the research page by an editor making spurious accusations about me being a sock and having a COI. They also deleted all my other edits without any explanation. AvidTyper (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Good day User:AvidTyper! Always make sure you tag the editor you are talking about so we can remain transparent on Wikipedia. I think you're referring to User talk:JzG or User:Novem Linguae? Please reach out to them directly. These two editors have been around for a long time, contributing invaluable, quality work to Wikipedia. I would be surprised if their actions were intentionally malicious. They are most likely making an effort to ensure the article meets our Wikipedia guidelines, manual of style, and policies - and that the contributors to it are also aligned with our policies in their accounts and actions. Please start a conversation with the appropriate editor or editors either on their talk pages, your talk page, or the talk page of the specified article. If you are struggling with getting content you desire represented on the appropriate article page, and you've failed to succeed - which would include presenting your positions on why the information should be included citing Wikipedia policy, manual of style, etc - then you can always escalate (which we try to avoid, if possible) to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Since I am an involved administrator - I closed the AfD - I will recuse myself from serving in an administrative role at this time. Missvain (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Missvain, what do you mean recusing as involved administrator? You said to ping you for help in the deletion page which is what I'm doing here. I didn't imply any intentional maliciousness and I did tag JzG on the article talk page, but he insists that I am a sock of other editors from ten years ago. I spent four hours incorporating a lot of material and references that they deleted and then deleted the section on the Group for being unsourced. AvidTyper (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, you didn't express any action needed regarding The Cambridge Working Group. If the article has been merged into the target article, then please just state that so I can redirect "The Cambridge Working Group." Instead, you just told me the drama that appears to be going on around the edits you are attempting to make. Therefore, your post reads like you need assistance in moderating a discussion between editors or supporting your effort to make your intended edits. Didn't see anything regarding the deletion or redirect action needed. Missvain (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify, The Cambridge Working Group was properly merged into Gain of Function Research by Novem Linguae, but without any references to sources. I added some more material and references and also added the opposing advocacy group for neutrality's sake, which JzG removed. Since the sources had been removed, JzG removed the entire section on The Cambridge Working Group and also claimed I have a COI. Neither I nor my lab have any affiliation with the Cambridge Working Group or any of its signatories. I do not like being the target of spurious accusations. AvidTyper (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so do you want me to redirect the article to Gain of Function Researchnow or not? It can wait as long as needed. And like I said above, any disagreement or confusion or concerns, please engage with JzG on the appropriate talk pages and if necessary, escalate to dispute resolution, if needed. This can include you being charged with being a sock or having a COI and you don't. People accusing you of something you aren't is not cool and should be dealt with possibly through dispute resolution. Missvain (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Return of Transparent Language article to userspace
I understand why you deleted the Transparent Language article, since participants in the AfD discussion had not found much to justify it. I just noticed when it was unlinked on List of language self-study programs. It has actually been a major resource for decades, and deserves an article both for people doing historical research on computer-assisted learning and for the present. A quick search at Google Scholar found evaluations in relevant journals from the US, Germany and Turkey from 1992,[1]
1998,[2]
2002,[3]
2018,[4]
and 2019.[5]
User:Kim9988 - Can you please link me to the exact Wikipedia page or discussion about the subject that was deleted? I can't find it by searching "Transparent language." If so, I can then drop it into your userspace. Do be warned though - if you republish it, it could be renominated again if it an editor expresses concern. (Don't worry, that won't be me). Missvain (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I can quite see why the page on Fox of Falmouth page was deleted - but I was planning to use it as the basis of a page which would follow Wikipedia guidelines. The Fox family had a huge influence on the town of Falmouth and county of Cornwall and deserves some mention I believe.
Is there any way you can either give me temporary access to the deleted page or let me have a pdf of it?
Monkeycounter (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Monkeycounter - I understand how frustrating it is to have an article nominated for deletion and deleted. It's happened to me.
If you can please link me to the deletion or the article, I'd appreciate it. I can't find it by searching "Fox of Falmouth." I'm happy to copy it into your userspace. If you'd like to request a deletion review of the article you can do so here. I am unable to undelete the article though. Missvain (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
dear Missvain why did you erase a portrait of 10 years ago ? existing since 1999 and done by F Roche, New-territories themselves. Specifically in a time where a delation is engaged through a dispute where homophobia (as it is written) could be an unspeakable reason. Erasing his transgender portrait in this condition could appear as an helping hand for the people who want to erase him, physically, and erase what he/she represent. Icietmaintenant is a wikipedia emanation of new-territories icietmaintenant
AfDs
Hello, Missvain,
Just checking in because a couple of your AfD closures were marked as speedy deletes by editors because they weren't deleted when you closed the discussion. Everything working with the AfD closure program? LizRead!Talk!00:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there is an issue with the tool I'm using. I rarely tag things speedy delete. I'm going to look into this. Missvain (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry if I was unclear. You didn't tag them for speedy deletion, you closed the AFDs (there were just two) and then a few hours later another editor tagged them as uncontroversial speedy deletion with a link to the discussion. When I checked the discussions, I saw that you closed the discussions as "Delete" but for some reason, the closure program didn't delete the page under discussion. LizRead!Talk!00:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Your close said only "Going with Cunard on this one". That's not an evaluation of an argument, but rather a statement of your prefered result, the definition of a supervote. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
And you did that very same thing again for Largo, California (AfD discussion) where you clearly imposed your own opinion of the article subject ("I know right where this area is.") rather than look to subsequent discussion that followed that first merger target, where several people thought that we could merge to a better place but we hadn't all agreed where, even though we seemed to agree on merging somewhere. This is not good work. Uncle G (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The Blue Cross close was not a supervote; rather it was an endorsement of the strength of Cunard's !vote. None of the !voters agreed with the nomination, which seemed quite weak with respect to WP:BEFORE, and so the result was so clear that it could have been a plain Keep without any embellishment.
Uncle G's complaint is better as a case of WP:IKNOWIT but the discussion was rather complex as a result of their writing of an entire article within it. As the outcome was going to be some variety of merger rather than deletion, the significant result is that the topic didn't get deleted and so is still available for further development, such as Uncle G's idea.
As Uncle G and DGG are both admins, they please should try closing some AfDs themselves. There seem to be too few closers at AfD now and so Missvain should be thanked for her efforts in helping to keep on top of this thankless chore.
Thanks Andrew. I am literally one of three or four people who actually closes stuff on AfD. It's annoying, unfun, and unpleasant work, but, I feel like I am contributing valuable work to the project - because no one else seems to want to do it. Cunard does great work and has convinced many people to !vote in support of keeping content. Editors are welcome to speedy renominate content if they disagree with me keeping an article based on his argument and the consensus that was presented because of it. Regardless, if people also have issue with the Largo, California (AfD discussion), feel free to propose something other than merger or renominated it for deletion and I'll stay out of the conversation. I live in the area, I know the subject, and it was sitting there in purgatory not being closed. I also prefer options to deletion, when possible. Uncle G is welcome to fly out to California and I can show him where 'Largo' is located and it's placement to Hopland versus Ukiah. I'll even take them wine tasting while they are here and show him a vineyard that is located in the "place" of Largo. I notice people prefer to complain about my activity in AfD rather than praise the work of the few admins who do work there to close content. I encourage others to start closing AfDs and put them in the position of us who do. My work will never be perfect - I am human - but, I do it WITH GOOD FAITH and with love.
And you know what really irks me? People complained about me doing AfDs - without assuming good faith - about six months ago and one editor told me to stop. I practically got bullied into stopping. If anyone reads the admin rules about AfD - follow some suggested policy and then do what you think is best. Well, he wasn't having that. I stopped. Then he stopped nominating and participating in discussion. And I noticed the backlog grew. Since he was no longer in the picture, I went back to doing my work. I noticed a few less admins actually closing content. Regarldess, out of the 298349023840932842 articles I have deleted, kept, merged or redirected (or "other") I have had like five complaints. So, I guess I really shouldn't let this get to me. Missvain (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Well "like five complaints" has just risen sharply by 7 in only 2 days. "I live in the area, I know the subject" is a very poor rationale for just outright ignoring discussion of merger possibilities. There are plenty of things that everyone does not know about their local areas. What was the point of your re-listing the discussion for people to discuss the merger if you just then proceed to utterly ignore the discussion (by 5 people) that you asked for? You ignored everything in the discussion below Special:Diff/1021256193. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk page lurker here. I don't see any problem with the Blue Cross AfD considering every voter apart from the nom mentioned that they agreed with Cunard. However, I would recommend undoing the Largo, California close and voting, as that seems like it would be overturned at DRV. Also, I can't find them now, but it looks like you un-did some of your closes a few days ago: I'm not sure what happened there, or if my memory's gone or my watchlist is wrong, but all of those seemed like good closes. SportingFlyerT·C20:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks SportingFlyer for assuming good faith and your ongoing contributions to all things Wikipedia. All I ask is that people act civil and assume that I am here to also do the best for the community. I'm happy to reopen the Largo, California discussion and recuse myself. Thanks again for keeping things civil and respectful. Yes, I had a little mix up on my dates and had to go back and reopen a few things - that was simply a human error on my part. Most of them ended up being closed for the original reasons I closed them for, but, I closed them too early. Thanks again. Missvain (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, Missvain, every time I look at AFDs there seem to be an overwhelming number of nominations and some closers just seem to take on the unanimous cases where everyone is in agreement. I applaud anyone making the tough decisions which will always result in some editors being unsatisfied with the results. LizRead!Talk!00:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing AFDs early
Please can you let AFDs run the full 7 days, particularly in situations where GNG is disputed, in case sources are found during that time? GiantSnowman11:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
No problem. When I see that there are five or more "deletes" I generally evaluate the subject, situation and the cases made and close early. If that's causing a burden, I'm happy to not do it. No skin off my back! Missvain (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing Fern Bayer based on your opinion
Hello! With respect, I found this close to be really strange. Is it really correct for a closer to be applying their own opinion to a close, and changing the outcome? The consensus was certainly not to merge.--- Possibly (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Possibly - Thanks for stopping by and for your contributions to Wikipedia. What was the consensus? There was a delete, a "partial merge" and a delete and redirect. I'm happy to relist this again if you want another go around. When all else fails, alternatives to deletion are preferred to straight deletion, IMHO. Is there a problem with merger and redirect? I don't see a problem. I often notice that when content is merged and redirected, rather than deleted, it's less likely to be recreated when the nominated AfD subject is probably not going to be worthy of its own article anytime soon. As a closing admin I make the final call based on what is presented. I'd rather see anything of worth be merged into an appropriate article and then redirected to that article. This isn't my "personal opinion" it's just my interpretation of how AfD can work after a decade of closing AfDs. Missvain (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate you too. It sounds like you are !voting in the !close I am encouraging we merge any worthy information to the appropriate article), which is perhaps what is bothering me there. It makes it sound like it's your opinion rather than a reflection of the discussion. There is also not much to merge ("In 1995 the last surviving General Idea member, AA Bronson, appointed her as the group's archivist." and "Bayer is the author of a catalogue raisonné of their work"), as far as I can see. --- Possibly (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the editor who suggested the merge just wants it mentioned - with citation - that the subject be mentioned in the appropriate article as being the curator or archivist. If there is nothing to merge, then feel free to redirect. As I said "any worthy information" and if it's already mentioned in the target article than redirect away. Missvain (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like I'm going to add to your recent talk page notifications about an AFD close that I feel you got wrong. Looking at your contribution history at the time, it looks like you are zipping through these discussions at a very high rate and not paying close enough attention to the actual discussion. You spent less than one minute closing this AFD as "merge" without any mention of why you chose to disregard experienced editors pointing out that community consensus has held that a notable person dying in a plane crash makes the event of the plane crash notable? RecycledPixels (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi RecycledPixels and thanks for your contributions. I spend *hours* each day (because I guess I need more of a life...) reviewing AfD. I have to say, it's sort of insulting when people say "You clearly speed through things," when they have no idea how I proceed and process things. I spend each day reviewing each page of AfD to keep tabs on *each* nomination, even ones I end up not reviewing. I am one of...maybe three editors who are reviewing AfDs. It's a lot of work, and it's not the most pleasant, but, it has to be done.
On that note, I have been monitoring this nomination for two weeks. On that note, I prefer to generally avoid deletion when possible. So, we're still keeping much of the material, just not the article itself as it stands right now. What is wrong with merging any information about the accident into Bill Whittington? There is little to no mention of it in Whittington's article in detail. All it says is that Whittington - a notable person - "died in a plane crash." Perhaps there are more details from the plane crash that can be used to improve his article, which clearly needs expansion? The article about Whittington fails to mention he was piloting the plane when it crashed. That is important information regarding someone's biography. Even this information, could be merged into his article: "According to his friend Randy Lanier when contacted by Autoweek, Whittington was giving a plane ride to an unidentified friend who "was terminally ill with cancer and had lost his pilot's license," and Whittington "wanted to give him an experience of flying again."
I failed to see what is wrong with merging information into his article and redirecting. User:Paolo9999, User:Itsfullofstars, User:MB, - even Wykx, who originally nominated the article for deletion - supported merger. That is consensus. While you !voted for keep, the article creator did not even provide a compelling case for why the article should be kept. Now, if you think that the article will grow into something more compelling - the actual plane accident article - I'm happy to draftify it for you so you can continue to improve it. Then, if you think it's beefed up enough and the content presented qualifies via general notability guidelines, including reliable secondary source coverage outside of just local and primary sources, then by all means fork it back into it's own article (with perhaps a more digestable name). But, right now I do not see how the plane crash article alone qualifies for its own article under WP:GNG in its present state. Missvain (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. It was not my intent to be insulting to you, and it was hasty of me to assert that you spent less than a minute reviewing the discussion before its closing. You are correct, I don't know how you do things, and merely looking at your contribution history is not necessarily an accurate representation of the thought you put into it.
I don't disagree with you that the Bill Whittington article could be improved with content from this article. But the discussion is about the accident article, and neither the accident or the person are subject matters that I take particular interest. I only came across the deletion discussion because I monitor the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts page, so I wouldn't be the person who would want the draft, but the article's creator might. As far as the question of notability of the accident, it did receive widespread, independent coverage in the press (google news search "winslow plane crash"), but ongoing coverage is impossible to judge at this point because it only happened three weeks ago, so I think it's premature to delete because of a lack of ongoing coverage. For that reason, the people (Itsfullofstars, MB, blocked IP editor, and Carguychris to some extent) who argued that the article does not meet WP:GNG failed to make a case, because the crash clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Paolo999's argument wasn't much more than IDONTLIKEIT, and Wykx's last-minute argument was a straw man argument. Nobody's claiming that we should "create a wikipage on each event of the person's life". So, I think the close was wrong and would ask you to reconsider, but I understand if you don't want to. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but, no one made a compelling case that the article passes general notability guidelines, either. Nor did I see a presentation of significant, reliable secondary sources to back up GNG. While aviation is not my speciality, there are plane accidents in the San Francisco Bay Area all the time - sometimes people die. The accidents rarely end up with Wikipedia articles, because the only coverage is local coverage, which can be tricky regarding GNG. Regardless of my observations, the only thing I will offer at this point is I'll relist it one more time if you want others to weigh in and I'll let another admin close it. Missvain (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and your comment about how common general aviation accidents are is accurate. People come and write articles about them all the time, and we vote to delete them in nearly all the cases. Some of the long-standing exceptions are if someone notable enough to have their own wikipedia article dies in the crash, or if it's a regularly-scheduled airline flight that crashes resulting in deaths or total destruction of the aircraft. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay that the Aviation project uses as a rough yardstick in that matter. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Request on 20:39:11, 20 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jborden1419
Hi, Missvain. Thank you for reviewing my article submission. I have been trying to get this article approved for about 6 months and must respectfully disagree with your decision. The sources I cite show significant coverage from a number of reputable trade publications, newspapers, and regional magazines. Further, many similar conferences with far fewer sources have been approved for inclusion on Wikipedia. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouchercon.
The Killer Nashville conference has been around since 2006 and is one of the most beloved writers' conferences in the entire U.S. It is well-known throughout the publishing industry and is considered a staple of the mystery, thriller, and suspense genres. Given that these sources clearly show significant coverage (more than a passing mention), I'm not sure what else I could provide in order to make this meet requirements or what, exactly, constitutes significant coverage if these sources--which, again, are not passing mentions and are from quite reputable sources--do not. I really hope you'll reconsider your decision. If not, please let me know how I can better satisfy the requirements and why these sources do not.
Hi Jborden1419! I can only imagine frustrating this is for you! First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so you're always going to find another article that might be similar to yours that might have an article on Wikipedia. I just tagged the Bouchercon article for its lack of sourcing! One thing about that conference - what makes it different from what you presented in your draft for Killer Nashville, is that if I use Google news, for example, I find tons of reliable secondary sources about the conference - from around the world. Therefore, it qualifies under our specific notability guidelines for events, which you can find here. When I do research on Killer Nashville, I only see local coverage and I do not see that it has decades of historical significance and industry wide impact. Of course, perhaps there are offline or other sources I am missing covering Killer Nashville nationally. Feel free to expand on the sources and improve your submission and submit it again. Perhaps another editor will feel differently than I do after reviewing what you've submitted. And of course, if you have a conflict of interest regarding Killer Nashville, please disclose it on your user page. On that note, I deeply encourage you to engage with other Nashville-related subjects. We have so much content that can be greatly improved on Wikipedia. Thanks again for your contributions. Missvain (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, Missvain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Scott Ivie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
What criteria did you use to delete the article "Graham Phillips (journalist)" in terms of choosing between keep/delete arguments? Nominated 5 May, but deleted less than 15 days later. Discussion page was split evenly between keep and half between delete, which probably should have merited an extended discussion period. I only realized it was nominated for deletion today. I see a lot of editors in a rush to delete articles, even those with split discussions, especially over the last two years.
Just to be clear, I am not writing this in an accusatory way, just to make a note of a curiosity/trend I have noticed and a genuine interest in how even discussions are decided.Knightoften (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. First, the majority of keeps appear to be from possible sockpuppets/meatpuppets and single purpose IPs. I didn't see anything sourcing wise that was convincing me the subject passes our general notability guidelines, basic, entertainer, journalist, perp, etc, per User:Cloud200 (the nominator) and User:RenatUK. As a reviewer, it's not my job to go find sourcing, but the job of participants to present their cases. I did not see a convincing keep presented aside from desperate IPs trying to save the article with a clear conflict of interest. If you feel it was closed to early, I'll reopen it for another week, but, I don't think this warrants that. I'd be fine with it being drafted again and submitted through AfC, if people do feel it qualifies for inclusion, and let the AfC folks review it. Have a good one! Missvain (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I see. Well, if it's your determination that the majority of keeps were sockpuppets or users with a clear conflict of interest, let's leave it at that! You too Knightoften (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all your terrific work User:Missvain. Your civility and inclusivity are an inspiration to many of us. Thanks for all you do!!! I hope lots of good health and good times are yours. You deserve them. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It's sort of a psuedo way for me to track what AfDs I've been following (I review all AfDs multiple times before they are closed) and also maybe encourage people to do a little more substantial research before just !voting. I know there is the bar across the top, but, this box is a little bit fancier and has direct links. Shouldn't be anything anyone should worry about, lol. Missvain (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a CheckUser or the Arbitration Committee.
You had removed the checkuser-block designation on the block in question, and reduced it from two weeks to one day. SQLQuery me!21:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Ack!! That was absolutely not intentional. My apologies. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused! Missvain (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Some how I missed the fact it was moved! I have reopened it and "renamed" the AfD appropriately. Missvain (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Link to Quicklibrary sockpuppet investigation
On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balaji Srinivasan page, you wrote an admin comment about a sockpuppet investigation into some of the editors who commented there (Quicklibrary, theFutureIsHere2020). However, the link to the sockpuppet investigation page doesn't work. Can you fix it? I'd like to read the sockpuppet investigation. The number of newbie editors at the Balaji Srinivasan article and its deletion page makes me curious. To wit:
Quicklibrary joined Wikipedia on April 29 yet he knew enough about Wikipedia to initiate a deletion discussion of the Srinivasan article only six days later on May 5. Most newbies don't know Wikipedia well enough to do that.
TheFutureIsHere2100 joined Wikipedia on April 30; six days later he found his way to Srinivasan's deletion page where he argued to delete.
Bitbro1972 edited Wikipedia for one day only (May 14). He made all of seven edits, two of them to Srinivasan's deletion page, where he argued to delete.
Kristyuhorton joined on April 22, made several edits to the Srinivasan article on April 23 and subsequent days, and has argued to delete. Curiously for a newbie, she also knew enough about Wikipedia to accuse me of 3RR warring on my Talk page. She took and submitted the photo of Srinivasan that appears in his article, which indicates she has a less than objective connection to the subject.
First, I think I am agreeing with you and that our issue is with someone else, maybe WikiCleanerMan.
About two weeks ago, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Ossetia–United States relations (2nd nomination), and you cut the article down to a redirect. I didn't take part in the AFD, but I would called for a Redirect. I had previously commented on Draft:South Ossetia–United States relations negatively. What has happened is that the submitter has submitted the draft to AFC for review again, and I have Rejected the draft. If he wants to appeal to DRV, he can appeal to DRV. The material can reasonably be put into the article about limited recognition of the state, the target of the redirect.
If the draft is resubmitted again, I will probably report it to WP:ANI and request a topic-ban.
Hola. Can I close it? I just did my first close yesterday (I was feeling brave, see?) and now have the heady scent of AfD closure in my nostrils!!! *beats chest, roars* - seriously, it's pretty much just a procedural close. I withdrew my vote and so could close as keep, no? What do you think? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my draft article about Roofit Solar Energy. It says the reason for rejection is that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Could you please give me a few specific examples so that I can improve and resubmit it? Thanks. Tea Mariamidze (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tea Mariamidze! All of the sources you used, or at least they appear to be, primary sources. You can't use those to establish notability per WP:CORP. You can find examples of what reliable secondary sources are here. Further questions can be asked at WP:TEAHOUSE. Cheers! Missvain (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-urgent: Would like a user to stop badgering me.
First, thanks so much for opening that sockpuppet investigation! Those socks were really bothering me, but I had no idea what to do about it. I'm still amazed that you managed to figure out exactly what I was thinking was happening. Now on the same AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nike_Dattani, I have so many times told JoelleJay that I'm feeling badgered, and I have even changed my !vote from "keep" to "speedy delete" because not only am I getting overwhelmed with all the replies and pings I was getting, but also if that user is so adamant about deleting the article, the article may benefit from waiting some time until the notability criteria are more "indisputably" passed.
However even after changing my !vote to delete, which is what JJ was pushing for, I keep getting badgered further and told something like "if you don't want to be badgered then don't reply to me". The user left some scathing remarks in two responses last night but I didn't reply to them because I was hoping the page could get deleted sooner rather than later, in order for the badgering to stop. I said on their talk page that I would be okay for the article to get deleted (which is what they wanted!), and asked in what I thought was a nice way "if I don't reply to your last two pages, can we call it a night and let the article get deleted?" and now they accused me of HOUNDING (in the AfD discussion rather than elsewhere, which I also thought was off-topic).
If you look at what I wrote on their talk page, and the one 8-word comment I left on another AfD where I just said "JoelleJay, be careful not to badger the user", I hardly think you would think this is HOUNDING since it was just one AfD discussion which I happened to come across myself (I participated in a lot of them recently!). I also didn't even know what HOUNDING was at the time. I would very much appreciate if the AfD could be closed now since with my "keep" retracted, it seems everyone is okay with "delete" including me (the article's author). The article can be created later when (and if) the notability becomes undeniable. I would also like the user to stop badgering me. I would just like to move on and not have that user keep investigating every single thing I'm saying.
Thank you so much for all your help with everything, it's amazing how much you're doing for the community! I was bothered by this badgering for a few days but didn't write to you because your main page says "this user is busy in real life" but now it's getting to the point where, I'm getting replies from this user at all hours of both night and day. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Missvain:. I'm feeling harassed by two users (one of them is the one I complained about above, on 27 May) who I feel have been bullying me for about 2 weeks and have been thanking each other on one of their talk pages. I've been losing sleep and having trouble eating and digesting food, for the last 2 weeks. It's affecting other members of my family. Unfortunately these two users are very regular, experienced users, so know how to "get to me" in a way that circumvents looking like policy violations to most people (I unfortunately don't know much about how Wikipedia works because I've been a "casual" user since 2008, having only made a few edits per year: even though I now have 1000+ edits, 500 of them were in the last two weeks). I don't want to use the noticeboards, because I am finding them extremely overwhelming. These 2 users have both "hounded" me on some noticeboards, and I am finding that process extremely bad for my mental health. I have repeatedly told both users: "please be more gentle with me", "go easy on me please", "I don't want to get into another 1-on-1 lengthy debate with you", "Can we please call a truce?" (x2), and they keep on replying again and again and again. I can't "disengage" because these users have made accusations against me publicly. I feel that if these accusations were true, then other Wikipedians would be able to make them (these 2 users don't have to keep initiating everything against me). In 13 years of being on Wikipedia, I'm new to all this drama and it's extremely disturbing to me. These users seem like they're on here full-time, and I can't compete with that because I have other work and other interests and family. My edit history will make it look like I'm on here full-time too, but that's only been in the last 2 weeks because of these users badgering me and sealioning me and digging up edits from years ago (some of them were even commented out using and still they're digging these up from years ago). Are you able to help me please? I told JoellJay to stop WP:Badgering and Sealioning me over and over and over, and recently asked for a truce and offered not to interact with them on AfD discussions if we can both agree not to interact with each other anymore, but they replied to me with more accusations. I've already removed pretty much all mentions of the person I wrote a biography about, from the articles listed at the top of the COIN accusation, and I would really just like that discussion to end because JoelleJay keeps writing more accusations that I find myself having to defend myself against. Is it possible to close the discussion early, or to mark it as resolved? Even if you want to put that the consensus is "COI exists" I don't care about that anymore, I just want the accusations to stop pouring in against me. I had very little WP experience when I wrote most of those articles and I want to make positive contributions to WP in the future. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Good morning User:GiantSnowman! As you can see in my summary, it is per WP:SNOW. As the snowball clause states, it's likely a snowball's chance in hell that the sources you hope you'll be pinged about will magically appear. The group commenting, the majority, are experienced editors regarding sports subjects and I trust the growing snow consensus. I will not "stop" closing early discussions if they are warranted through speedy or snow (or if there is some crazy exceptional situation). Have a great day! Missvain (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What is to be gained by closing them early though? Or, to look at it another way, why not leave it to run the full 7 days? GiantSnowman14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Probably my OCD? Those of us who process AfDs - like, literally four or five editors at this point, if that - all have our way of doing things. Some of us look at a sportsfigure getting five, six, seven, eight "deletes" with legit rationale and we trust the editors making those comments and we say "Eh, let's close it early." Others might let it ride out. We all have our ways. On the flipside, I could ask you why it bothers you so much? But, it won't really change my processes. Have a good one and thanks for contributing to AfD! Missvain (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Can't speak for Giant, but it bothers me because it prevents sufficient discussion and practically ensures deletion. Same thing I spoke to you yesterday about, concerning the rapid deletion of articles as well. Not all users are on Wikipedia daily, let alone weekly. Deleting an article quickly can ensure that input from the author or other individuals in the community remains unheeded. Knightoften (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If y'all believe that the outcome would change with more discussion, WP:DRV is thataway. Otherwise, arguing that discussions should be kept open for the sake of process is why SNOW and WP:EARLY exist. (To me, this AfD looks like a clear-cut SNOW.) Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@The ed17: I don't know where you're getting that from; it's the opposite. Our deletion process states: "In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days (168 hours) to allow interested editors adequate time to participate."
Snowball only applies when the "outcome of the deletion discussion is, or has become, almost certain, such that there is not a "snowball's chance in hell" that the outcome will be anything other than what is expected." It is not to be used to "close a discussion when a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "highly likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon."
Ashley509 - It appears User:Theroadislong has already reviewed the article. It appears Kadda Sheekoff is not able to have their own Wikipedia article at this time. Thanks and I hope you'll edit other content on Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201
Hi Missvain. I wanted to share a few concerns about the blocks you made related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennie Matthias. I don't necessarily think that they should be unblocked, but I noticed that before you blocked those accounts, you had already expressed an opinion at the AfD—as a result, I think you are WP:INVOLVED with respect to that AfD. Additionally, I ran a CheckUser on the three accounts there, and based on that information, I would say there is a good chance that the three accounts may be three separate individuals. To be sure, CheckUser can't rule out the possibility that one of those individuals recruited the other two to influence that discussion, which is still against Wikipedia policy per WP:MEAT—because of this, I don't exactly think the blocks were unjustified per se. In the future, I would just report to WP:SPI instead of blocking myself. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that feedback and your intel Mz7 - even more so handling it with good faith. I'll probably just go through SPI to be safe next time. If it does warrant an unblock, I will defer to you to make that decision. Missvain (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for you attempts to receive more input in this AfD discussion. I believe that more "votes" were received but that no consensus was reached, because most of the "Delete" and "Merge" comments contained no legitimate rationale to support them. In my view the central theme of the input from people espousing "Delete/Redirect/Merge" is typified by this statement: "Can't see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions." Variations on this unsupported opinion are found in three other comments. On the other hand, the idea that the UIUC's response is close to unique is argued, with support, by the "Keep" commenters, and is strongly supported in the article itself.
There are lots of ideas about how to merge the article, but do you see an informed discussion or rationale for the need to merge it? Do you put weight on a comment saying "doesn't feel like a topic for an encyclopedia"? Do you believe that the article reads like an advertisement (which is mentioned in multiple Delete/Redirect/Merge comments). These "advertisement" comments are about the only ones which come close to saying something specific about the article, right? In summary, what do you consider to be the central ideas behind a consensus for a need to "Merge" this article (as opposed to ideas about how to merge it)? Thank you, CWBoast (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
CWBoast - If you don't think it should be merged, feel free to speedy renominate it for delete, or, preferably have a discussion on the appropriate talk pages with interested parties regarding if a merger is needed and if you should just redirect. Missvain (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
My intent, in asking all those questions, was to learn whether there is any chance of retaining the article, as an article, i.e., "Keep"ing it, instead of "Merge"ing it. I think that there is an appeal process for that, called (Deletion review), right?. But before even considering that as an option I wanted to try to learn something from you about the tricky issue of a "vote" versus a "legit rationale" -- a phrase I see on your Talk page. I believe that those who espoused options other than "Keep" provided very little in the way of legitimate rationales, typified by the comment I quoted above ("Can't see anything in the article that didn't happen with the majority of educational institutions"); do you consider that a legitimate rationale? If I'm out of line to raise this with you, please tell me; I appreciate the huge amount of work involved in the AfD process, and I don't want to bog you down inappropriately. CWBoast (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
CWBoast - It seems this might be a newish process for you. I suggest if you want to have the article kept, you go through WP:Deletion review - I never take it personal. I have no attachment to the content on Wikipedia that I review in AfD. The keeps were not compelling - you appear to have a deep investment in this article because you wrote it, which 95% of the time, from my experience, the editor who wrote an article never wants their article/creation deleted. The other keep arguments basically stressed how important the saliva test was. Pretty much what User:Love_of_Corey said was true - this article is about the entire response the university had to COVID. Not just the saliva test, but, all the keeps stressed that test over and over again. I also did not find the sources provided by Feminist enough to compel me into believing an entire, huge article about the University's response subject merits it's own article. The saliva test is the only distinct thing that stands out about this University's involvement in COVID-19 - the rest is par to the course as to what other colleges went through - and they don't have articles about their responses. If I wouldn't have relisted this AfD, I probably would have deleted it. So, a merge is an WP:Alternative to deletion and a way to just include the most important parts - about the saliva test - into an article already summarizing Illinois' response to COVID-19. I'm sorry, but, I am not going to keep this article. Missvain (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
A request to reconsider the deletion of the 'Hungarian Testing Board' page
@Missvain:@MB:@Explicit:
I would like to ask if you might reconsider the deletion of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Testing_Board. on 24 of May. There was also a previous version of this page deleted on May 1st, but the reasons for the original deletion aren't clear to me.
For your information, several sister organisations of the Hungarian Testing Board in other countries have Wikipedia pages containing very similar content:
I'm not sure why the Hungarian Testing Board page doesn't reach the same levels of notability as these pages? I'd be happy to make any changes you request to make the proposed pages more suitable for acceptance.
Thank you for your time and any advice you can give me.
Sidn37, WP:GNG explains that articles must have in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I have proposed that the articles above be deleted as well (the ones on this Wikipedia). Articles in other languages are controlled by the policies of those Wikipedias. Even the article on the parent organization is poorly sourced with 5 of the 7 references going to the organization's own website. MB13:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks User:MB for chiming in. Also, Sldn37, I do not plan on undeleting that article. If you wish to challenge the deletion you can attempt to have the AfD overturned here. However, I don't think the outcome will weigh in your favor due to the subject failing general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks User:MB and User:Missvain for taking the time to reply to my question. I take on board your reasons for the page deletion. However, I would like to remain optimistic about the value of this page, so will follow User:Missvain's suggestion to request a Deletion review. I might also try and improve the sourcing of the parent organization's page--thanks for the heads up on this issue.
I'm puzzled how this warranted a relisting, as the only 4 editors to comment, all felt it should be kept, and the nominator is by their own admission not experienced! Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark - Sure, RS but - these are passing mentions - not significant coverage[1][2][3] and the techCrunch piece barely passes for "significant" independent coverage, it includes a Q&A and reads like a competition.[4]. Treehugger is a website in which almost anyone can be a contributor - like Forbes or Huffington Post. And Crunchbase is just a business profile, not a reliable secondary source. It surely appears more like a puff piece collection than anything else. I'm sure if you rewrote tha rticle with significant coverage in RS than perhaps it would be OK. Nothing convinces me that Beartooth Radio merits its own Wikipedia article at this time, sorry. Missvain (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
While you are not convinces at this time can you please REFUND to draft (or userify) the article together with its talk page for possible further development. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou for the restore. Unfortunately there are who issues. Firstly there are missing revisions from that restore which gives a number of issues, not least of which are attribution issues, which can be really important. Can you please ensure all reversion are properly restored .... it looks like for done a cut and paste leaving the content attributable to yourself!. Can you also confirm there was no talk page, that is also important and should be restored at the same time. (Mostly the talk pages contains nothing, on a rare number of times is is very significant. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing and approving the de Franssu article. I learned a lot about the Wikipedia process. Next stop, reggae. KRL219 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Humbled by your kind words! Make sure to visit WP:TEAHOUSE if you have any questions (no matter how small) about editing. Can't wait to see your contributions to reggae! Missvain (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
