Hi StarMississippi,Hope you’ve been doing well. I wanted to ask a quick procedural question aboutDraft:Sanket_Goel. I’ve been working on improving it through the COI edit request process (with input from neutral editors), and it’s now been resubmitted for review.
Since it’s been waiting for some time, I just wanted to understand whether there’s anything I should do from my side such as adding tags or if it’s best to simply wait for a reviewer to pick it up.I’m not asking for a direct review, just hoping to make sure I’m following the right process. I really appreciate your time and any general advice you can offer. Thanks!Shashy 922 (talk)19:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a quick look and I don't think there's anything further you need to do. I'll try to look in greater depth this weekend. You've provided some great information and it looks like the other editors have incorporated it. There's about a two month wait in AfC right now, so it's probably just that. If there are tags that you think should be added that would help a reviewer understand Goel's work, you can mention them on the Talk in or out of an edit request.StarMississippi03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. The Sanket Goel draft was recently reviewed again and declined for “insufficient reliable sources.” This surprised me a little since you and other editors have previously mentioned that the sourcing looked fine and that there wasn’t anything further I needed to do at that point.
I’m not questioning the reviewer’s judgment, I know AfC can vary depending on who handles it, but I’m genuinely trying to understand what may still be missing so I can address it properly. If you have any thoughts on what specific improvements could help bring the draft in line with AfC expectations, I’d really appreciate your guidance.
If reviewing it again isn’t feasible for you right now, no worries at all. Even a brief pointer on what direction to take would help me avoid repeating mistakes.
I don't have the time to look into the details at the moment but if you haven't already, I'd recommend checking in with @SafariScribe to see if they have any details to share. There may be something specific they were looking for that they didn't see. Please do ping me if I don't come back to you after December 9 after which I anticipate more on wiki time.StarMississippi03:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SM for getting this to my notice. Indeed the editor was right and I may have mistaken something while reviewing the draft. I have gone ahead and accepted it. Cheers!Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!08:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashy 922 don't hesitate to let either of us know if you have further questions. If I'm not as responsive as I should be due to offline priorities, the Help Desk and Teahouse are great resources.StarMississippi15:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There isno official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at thetalk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use theSecurePoll software to vote, which uses asecret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must beextended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on theresults page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to themain election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not beenrecalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are nobureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on theelection talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyonewho qualifies to vote has a week to use theSecurePoll software to vote, which uses asecret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. Thesuffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on theresults page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to themain election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes.Recall candidates must achieve55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are nobureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on theelection talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
Hello, why did you close this as delete? The fact that there was a controversy regarding the temple is enough to make it notable. Delete !voters didn't dispute the sources, they just asserted that there should be no page.Kelob2678 (talk)10:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning @Kelob2678. In my read, consensus was clear there that there wasn't enough to support a page. If you'd like me to relist it, I will. I do not see any other potential close at this stage.StarMississippi13:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. While working onNasrat Khalid, I learned that you previously moved the first attempt to draft in 2023, and it was eventually deleted. I cannot view the deleted version, but if you can, I’d appreciate a quick check to see whether this new draft is an improvement and ready to stand. Thank you.Bagwe Neza (talk)15:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your new version is much improved, thank you. I've restored the prior edits (courtesy heads up, @Explicit) as the kind of deletion was simply because no one was actively editing it, not that the content was an issue. While I'm not positive the article would be kept at an AfD, you've certainly addressed the issues sufficiently that a G4 wouldn't be a concern. You're welcome to move it to mainspace. Please let me know if I can be of further help.StarMississippi15:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! We don't intersect very often, so I hope you'll recall and understand my thanks foryour thanks on a diff of mine. What I saw was just a very odd and dramatic occurrence; one of a kind in my 20 years here. It's even odder (but wonderful) that anyone else noticed. Thank you. I look forward to working beside you in the future, whether I know it or not.JFHJr (㊟)22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'll be honest, I don't recall exactly how I saw it, but it was part of an odd pattern by that editor. Your response was perfect. Should you run into any issues, don't hesitate to ping me. Likewise look forward to working with you.StarMississippi03:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable! Well... they did only have a partial block, this means they are now a sock. I don't know how this affects their chances of ever being able to return to regular editing in the future...11WB (talk)19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Izno @11WB and apologies for the delay, I've been offline. If my initial block still needs adjusting, please feel free to do on my behalf. Editors playing dumb about the account/person block situation make me shake my head somehow still all these years later.StarMississippi12:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, I saw your note to UFG. Flagging this conversation as well. Unfortunately I haven't had the on wiki time to fully follow the whole situation but wanted to be sure you were aware.StarMississippi19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Star Mississippi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Arishfa Khan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hi! I've been trying to supportR2025kt after you blocked them from article creation, but I'm worried that we've got a case of a very enthusiastic editor who can't get pastCIR hurdles.
I've asked them to get a mentor twice because they're swallowing up time at AFC. Beyond this, I genuinely don't know what else I can do to help them.
Would you mind taking a moment to look at their Talk and see what you think? Are we getting anywhere or is this going to be a persistent issue?Blue Sonnet (talk)17:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your efforts to help them as well as Orlando @Blue-Sonnet but I believe your generosity is being taken advantage of here. (cc @Theroadislong)
I'm not sure whether it's competence or trolling, or whether it matters. The draft should be rejected at this stage. I'd hoped that a mainspace block would be sufficient but it's not if their disruption has moved to AfC. I'll leave a note on their Talk as a final warning.StarMississippi18:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the problem is unwillingness to move on after the partial block. Allowing them to work on BLP drafts is how they got into the problem in the first place. We need a topic ban on BLPs altogether. Even then, they're all kinds of CIR problems.BusterD (talk)18:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, they really need to build up their fundamentals before creating full articles, but the posts when I suggest that are the few that don't get any response...Blue Sonnet (talk)18:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you! I try to err on the side of AGF but that means there will be be cases where it's not going to change anything - I had a feeling this was one of those times, so I should stop and check with someone more experienced.
I think your willingness to help is admirable @Blue-Sonnet. PLease do continue as there are situations when it can very much help, but there is some fundamental IDHT in season right now
@BusterD I sadly agree with you re: further guardrails. My on wiki time is sporadic due to major work event, so I won't be able to monitor and be available to discuss a new ANI discussion, but would support a topic ban. My concern isUser_talk:R2025kt#What_is_a_BLP and theid discussion with @Bonadea where they were being willfully clueless about what makes something a BLP and I'd be 0% surprised if they continued down that vein with a topic ban..StarMississippi18:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've told them I'm going to stop giving advice on BLP's and suggested something simpler - I've got them watchlisted to see how they respond.Blue Sonnet (talk)18:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've indeffed them for continuing to involve themselves in BLP articles after all this warning and a partial block. It's time to end this.BusterD (talk)11:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Blue-Sonnet @BusterD for handling while I was offline. Their inability to listen is what got them blcoked and I recommended their appeal be declined. My on wiki time is still somewhat limited but will try to keep an eye out.StarMississippi17:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did too - it's weird because I usually try to coach people through a successful block appeal, but this should absolutely be declined.
I desperately want to believe it's CIR and not intentional, but going straight back to BLP's after I'd told them not to on multiple occasions has me questioning myself...
FYI, I "reverted" your redirect close by adding three sources - which were previously identified and available - to the article, which I think is compatible with your close. Just wanted to give you a heads up!SportingFlyerT·C18:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fine @SportingFlyer, and is why I specified "when" in the close. I wasn't able to find the other AfD you referenced in your comment at Apertura AfD. Probably search error but if you think of it in the future, can you try to link when you're cross referencing? Makes life easier for closer and participants.
They were directly next to each other in the deletion sorting, essentially on the exact same topic, and I was frustrated. I'm sure as a closer you probably didn't see them in order as such!SportingFlyerT·C18:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
separation probably also a function of the relist on this one. No worries, just saves us all a step when possible, which it isn't always. I forgot to ping in my note on the close, but amended closing note in lieu of reclosing. It reflects this discussion.StarMississippi18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:Polly Gordon Walk, Carl Schurz Park, Upper East Side.jpg
This file is aderivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the file description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.
Wikipedia takescopyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine thelicense and thesource of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add acopyright tag to theimage description page.
If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created inyour upload log.
I G7ed it as it's clear fromthis info that it's probably under copyright. I wasn't as well versed in images then. If there are other processes, feel free to end and link to this discussionStarMississippi03:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yousuf31 was banned by you and started sockpuppeting. I recently noticed this account named @OmaniCoder popping up and I notice they are pretty similar to that previous editor with similar edits to Omani articles and having the same behavior. I am still not 100 percent sure though. Since you had blocked @Yousuf31 in the past, I might ask you if you think they are potentially a sockpuppet.Zaptain United (talk)01:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be...account was created about a month after the other was blocked, seems to have a similar pattern with editing aircraft crashes, and also appears to have a similarly confounding misunderstanding of verifiability and notability. Would also recommend requesting an SPI here.nf utvol (talk)02:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you check old archives of Yousuf31, you can see that he said he was a programmer and this account is called Omani Coder. Another interesting thing is that they have a similar format when nominating AFDs. They both mention they are nominating the article for deletion on the talk page. CheckJetBlue Flight 292 andAvient Aviation Flight 324.Zaptain United (talk)02:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing some more of their edits, I took the liberty to go ahead and request SPI with a CheckUser. Feel free to add any more evidence.nf utvol (talk)02:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaptain United one thing for future reports, the puppeter/master/puppeteer is the first account so in this case Yousuf. You're telling Omani that you believe they're a sockpuppet. It's not an issue, but just so that you know down the line.StarMississippi02:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I understand. By the way, if they are blocked for being a sockpuppet, will this AFD still continue?
Thanks for spotting/blocking that. You might also want to take a look at the IPV6 /64 range as there have been other temporary account(s) socking similar articles going back to mid-November, e.g. ~2025-38349-6310mmsocket (talk)16:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like other editors got to the cleanup first, but I just blocked. I've watchlisted a couple of the targets and hope we can spot them sooner next time. (Thanks again @Zaptain United for catching the latest named account.StarMississippi16:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This block was an obscene abuse of your administrative tools.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am a bit puzzled bythis edit of yours, closing a question on the reference desk. Sometimes an OP, being satisfied, adds " Resolved", but this need not stop others from providing further insights. My first thought was that you had determined that the OP was a sockpupprt of a banned or block-evading user, but I see no signs of that. So I don't get the point of this closure. Note further that the template{{abot}} adds the text "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page", but there is no "appropriate" discussion page for specific reference desk questions. ‑‑Lambiam22:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their edits, which would have made it clear why they were in issue have been deleted. they were using editors time to build their edit count before outing themselves as a sock/troll. If there's a better template, feel free to amend my close.StarMississippi00:23, 14 December 2025 (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, pleaseconsult the documentation and please get in touch onSuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
The number of arguments is not the deciding factor, it's those with policies and guidelines. FIFA and Trump being notable does not provide notability to the award, and that argument had clear consensus. If you disagree, you're welcome to open adeletion review as I have reread it and don't see any other way I could have closed it. Thanks!StarMississippi13:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to you regarding the ongoing Deletion Review for the articleKerkula Blama, in which you seem to be the reviewing administrator. Thank you so much for your work on this.
I would like to respectfully provide some context for your final consideration, focusing on the article's content now that it has been temporarily restored.
My primary contention is that the article meets the threshold ofGeneral Notability. It is supported by multiple independent, reliable sources, such asFrontPage Africa,News Ghana andLiberian Observer which have published significant, non-trivial coverage about the subject's career and recognition. This coverage constitutes the basis for notability.
As noted in the DRV, a prior article for his organization was redirected precisely because the sources focused on his individual notability, which is the foundation of this article.
I understand the DRV's role is to examine the closing judgment. However, I believe the restored content provides a verifiable basis for retention. Could you please share your perspective on whether the coverage from these sources meets the significant coverage requirement of GNG?
There is no one reviewing administrator. I did weigh in,but so will others. You do not need to repeat your comments as they will be seen by the closer when they evaluate the discussion. It would be better for you if you come clean about your connection to Blama and your fellow editor though.StarMississippi14:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Star Mississippi thank you for clarifying the review process. To address your question directly, there’s absolutely nothing to come clean about as it relates to my connection with either the subject or another user/editor. If you check the edit history you’ll see how much I’ve contributed to the subject which prompts my participation in this deletion discussion and review as an editor who clearly believes the temporarily restored article’s content, specifically the cited independent sources meet the threshold for notability underWP:GNG As stated in Wikipedia’s guidelines, a conflict of interest is “a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person’s opinions, integrity or good faith. My intent has been solely to ensure that the decision is based on the application of content policies to the article’s current state, perWP:DELREASON. I will continue to follow the discussion and trust the closing administrator to evaluate the policy-based arguments presented.
That's great. No one is judging your opinions or good faith, just a curious interest in an article subject. You got some good advice on sources which will be helpful if the article is restored or retained in draftspace for you to work on.StarMississippi14:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You wrotePlease focus one on the book and one on yourself, if you insist, without repeating content between the drafts.
I got it. This article is for the book. Not sure I will draft a BLP. One thing at a time.
Not sure what this is, but it doesn't belong here following an AfC paperwork decline
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
You also wrote
"This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, The Haven by Richard Dube, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."
My reply follows:
Well, ok, here is the situation. Keep an open mind. I know that's tuff for many of you.
Lol - Oh, no, don't do that, because you will be wasting time for sure. The absolute best and most efficient use of our time and the smartest course of action is to immediately delete, burn, destroy and expunge The Haven by Richard Dube without hesitation, regret, or delay and begin reviewing the Draft:Richard Dubé. Do it now, time is of the essence. Hit that delete button.
As the chief and sole creator of The Haven by Richard Dube article, I want it deleted right away. Assuming you did that by now, and you should - Thank you very much.
This new and improved article, Draft:Richard Dubé, is what needs reviewing and speedy acceptance. Review this article immediately instead - Draft:Richard Dubé. It is a vastly improved article and the only one I want reviewed and, yes, ultimately moved in the mainspace where it belongs and deserves to be. It is extemely well sourced, very well written and exceeds, yes exceeds, notability and neutrality standards and guidelines.
Again, don't waste precious time with that old heap of trash. Speedily delete The Haven by Richard Dube. I don't want that article reviewed. Review Draft:Richard Dube instead. Did you delete it yet?
Fair and friendly professional warning: I am not accusing you, just giving you a friendly and professional heads up because I get a lot of this. Again, I am not saying you are doing this. It just happens a lot.
Now, if anyone maintains or asserts this new and improved article Draft:Richard Dube is is not notable or well-sourced, I will appeal on grounds of editorial bias. We are all aware that many editors dislike, resent and have contempt toward former offenders and their contributions, and that contributions from me face many vexatious, frivolous and unfounded efforts to delay, block, delete or decline our submissions. Shame on editors for that practice.
The editors decline my submission based on false and disengenuous objections about COI, sources, and/or neutrality without merit. These objections are rooted in bias and are guises to mask their contempt, resentment and hatred toward us. This is just a matter of fact and experience.
To be crystal clear, I will not tolerate or accept any of that. I expect professionalism and objectivity. I expect all of us to respect the rules and all adhere to the same wikipedia standards.
Sadly for these editors, and hopefully you are not among them, the status quo is about to change, and change now. I will be included and my voice will be heard. I will not allow editors to write lies about me now, or after I die. I see this slander on many wiki pages. They write when the person is dead and gone and write all kinds of unsubstantiated, unsourced BS. It is libellous. It really is.
No, not me. I will take back my voice and own my narrative. The current form of culturally appropriating my culture, hijacking my voice and distorting my lived experience by a group of haters is about to come to a screechng halt. No more. No thanx.
I know the rules and guidelines and I respect and follow them. So set aside any personal bias, if you have any, and review the sources. There are many. And try, just try to enjoy the content.
On a personal note, I have been clean, sober and crime free for 40 years. Got out in 1987, sobered up and have not had a drink or slip since and this in the face of overwhelming hate, obstacles, prejudice and yes, wiki blocks. lol
I picked up my BA, founded a charitable organization, started an agency to place ex-cons in jobs, picked up a diloma in addictions, stayed clean and sober and crime free since 1989, got my pardon, - - what else do you want or expect from me?
I will not crumble to the hate, or bend to prejudice and contempt. I will never surrender. Read the book, you will see, I don't break, crumble or submit.
I published the book nearly 14 years after my release from those nut houses. lol - I was really tuff then and am still tuff at 65. Lol.
It's because I did notunderstand I could edit the older draft once it was submitted. That only the lder, less welldone draft would be reviewed. I did not know I could edit that one. I'm very sorry for the confusion. Sorry if I opffended you. I really am.
BTW, I got the revised article on Draft:The Haven by Richard Dube as you suggested. All this trouble was because I simply did not know I could edit the article once it was submitted.
I know I get defensive and it's because I took a lot of heat about COI, lack of coverage, notability, lack of neutrality. So now i get defensive with every message I get. Sorry.
Ultoimately, the article wioll speak for itself. I know it's hard but not impossible to write neutrally because the article relies 100% on sources. It's all written in "according to sources" fashion, not according to me. Also, the book will inform the Synoppis.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to draw your attention toSinghabhinav3, who has repeatedly created articles about, presumably, himself; these have all been deleted as A7/G11s. They have also now created an article via LLM, which has since been draftified. All this you can find via their talk.
If you observe their contributions, however, you might see that they make many edits in rapid succession; these are individual links added to articles. I'm concerned that this might be gaming of some sort, but what that might be for I fail to imagine. In any case, the promo and LLM, I think, are enough to establishWP:NOTHERE.
