User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

User:Draft/Adaptive Noise Cancelling

Hey, Sdrqaz,

I hope you had a pleasant weekend. I think if you look at the page history of Draft:Adaptive Noise Cancelling, it's clear that the editor just put the wrong name when they moved the page, they meant "Draft" but put it in the title section and forgot to change the namespace from "User" to "Draft". I think this page can be safely deleted. Or this can just remain an amicable difference of opinion between admins! Stay well! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Liz; I hope you had a nice one too. I did look at the page history before deleting and restoring, and agree that it was created in error (I'd say almost all U2s are). However, the wording of U2 at the time was vague as to whether a deletion under those circumstances was permissible, as it is technically in the userspace of a renamed user. Where would Wikipedia be without these technicalities, I wonder? I've altered the text of the criterion to make it clearer and will be deleting it shortly. Thanks for reaching out and I hope that you're doing well too. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: See the page logs for User:Draft/Adaptive Noise Cancelling.

Impersonator

Just informing you that you've had an impersonator (User:Sdrqez) pop up and close AFDs on your behalf. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

How thoughtful of them. Thanks for letting me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Improper close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references in The Cantos

Please undo your close of that discussion. It violates WP:DELAFD requirement that "The discussion lasts at least seven full days". It hasn't lasted three. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Piotrus: The discussion was closed by the impersonator mentioned above (and later by another impersonator). --Blablubbs (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) That close was done by User:Sdrqez, an impersonator of Sdrqaz. Already reverted. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blablubbs @Padgriffin Thank you all, I didn't notice that. Keep up the good work, everyone :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

AFD page protection

Hey, Sdrqaz,

I hope you are well. Since you seem like you are following the lastest troll, I decided to protect several AFDs that he attacked with several different sockpuppets. I have never protected a discussion page before so I hope that people see this as a way to reduce vandalism. Feel free to lift it if you think it is counter-productive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Liz; hope you're good too. My instinct is that apart from the point they're trying to make, they aren't targeting those pages because they have some sort of animosity towards the subjects, but because they know that we're watching and they want to get caught: I was pinged twice by them in about three hours yesterday (1, 2). I suspect that they will move on to other pages. That being said, of course, nothing has happened since your protections, so I'm probably wrong. Indefinite for the protections, especially for the articles, may be too long, though. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was regarding these protections, in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jettew10222. Protection was subsequently lifted from Vanessa Bishop.

Handling a duplicate of a Draft article in namespace

Regarding RV University, I was on new page patrol and noticed that it was a near-duplicate of a prior article that had been moved from mainspace to draftspace. I assume the editor is trying to get around draftification. I thought A10 was correct, but obviously not, since it doesn't apply to drafts. What do I do to remove this duplication? Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: I agree that you're right about it being an attempt to get around the prior draftification, but the community believes that draftification should be a "one-shot" thing, where if an editor objects it should not be moved to draftspace again (WP:DRAFTOBJECT and WP:NPPDRAFT #3b). As a result, I'd advise redirecting the draft to the article, as there doesn't seem to be any mergeable information and it seems like other editors' work on it was not copied over. If you believe it is non-notable, prodding it or taking it to AfD is probably the next step. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: See this discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. A {{moved to}} template to that discussion was added but was replaced by this note.

The draft

Why do you keep deleting my speedy templates for unreasonable reasons. Is there something I did to you that I don't know? This is hard to understand! When do you think the draft should be deleted after 10 years, for example?--Sakiv (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I believe I've declined four of your speedy deletion nominations so far (this A1, this one that didn't have a criterion, this G6, and this G13). If you see the text of G13, it applies to drafts that "have not been edited by a human in six months". Before you began editing it, the last edit was on 23 November 2021. You tagged it on 17 May 2022, before the six months was up. That was declined by Explicit. You tagged it again today, eight days after Explicit edited it. That is not six months after the last human's edit. What's the rush in getting it deleted? Is it harming the encyclopaedia in any way? Leave the draft alone, and after six months (if no-one edits it in that period), it'll be deleted. If your nominations are correct, I will delete them. If they're not, I will decline them. This is nothing personal.

I would say, however, that I am thoroughly disappointed by your conduct at 2022–23 Borussia Dortmund season / 2022-23 Dortmund season. NoyalZIRock created an article on a subject, you tried to get it deleted, it was declined, you moved it to the wrong title, redirected it, and requested deletion again. You then created an article on the same subject days later, at the right title because you had moved away someone else's work. That behaviour is beyond the pale. Wikipedia is not about winning. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The user you're referring to didn't even attribute the texts he copied to those who worked hard on the previous season's article. This behavior is definitely not acceptable. Regarding the first point, the passage of 6 months is not always a prerequisite, as I have seen sometimes.--Sakiv (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sakiv: So you tried to take revenge by getting their article deleted, and when that didn't work, usurped it? Your reaction to someone draftifying something you'd written was to give them a level-three warning for "vandalism" and say that "There was no point in what you did. The page has been reviewed and that's it. There are no other articles about this subject. The article will be developed in the next few days." You had moved two articles on that subject to incorrect titles (1, 2) days before that statement. How is this behaviour compatible with your permissions, granted by Schwede66 and TonyBallioni? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What you are doing now amounts to harassment and I demand that you stop immediately. I did not take revenge on anyone. Do you want to ask me about every mistake I made even if it was unintentional? Claudiogostoso did not even draftify the article correctly. --Sakiv (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

(responding to ping) fwiw, haven't looked at this closely, but my view is that pending changes reviewer is essentially that the person has shown that they aren't a vandal. The circumstances where it'd be revoked would be if they let through enough BLP violations and obvious vandalism that it was a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Tony, my point was that someone who reacts to an article being draftified with a level-three vandalism warning is someone who cannot distinguish vandalism from good-faith editing, which is one of the requirements for being a reviewer. Of course, this issue wasn't directly a result of one of their reviews. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: See this prior 14 May conversation and Special:Permalink/1091462475 § Misunderstanding at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, originally at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions.

BFDI (Franchise)

Hi Administrator, BFDI (Franchise) doesn't have any context and has been deleted before too and someone is trying to push it hardly on mainspace? Which csd should i place it on if it's not nonsense which doesn't have any context. I thought A7 or G11 wouldn't workout in this context, sometimes mistake happens can you enlight my mistake so i can be careful in future while logging csd? Owlf 📪 16:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Owlf, for the question "Which csd should i place it on if it's not nonsense which doesn't have any context", the answer is usually A1. However, BFDI (Franchise) did have context. Not having context, for CSD, is when you cannot identify what the subject is. That applies even when there isn't a lot of information in the article itself (that's what was there on the page when it was tagged). Even if we had zero content apart from the title, a Google search for "BFDI franchise" gives me a Fandom article, which is more than enough information. You are right that A7 and G11 did not apply, as television programs are exempt from A7 and it was in no way promotional.

Being deleted before and having someone "trying to push it hardly on mainspace" doesn't mean articles have to be deleted. While in this case it was deleted because it was a copy of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion, that may not always apply and patrollers need to be careful when tagging pages; good knowledge of CSDs for new page reviewers is necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was regarding the G1 CSD nomination of BFDI (Franchise).

Note on an SPI

Please note that I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdrqnz (with an "n" instead of your "a"). Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What a surprise. Thanks for letting me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Inadequate protection indeed

Well, it would be more adequate if socks were blocked when reported. Thanks for the quick action, would you mind doing some quite expansive revdels on my user and talkpages and their edit summaries? Thanks again, CMD (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly took too long to type this. Thanks, CMD (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

SPI has a tendency to be rather slow (or deliberative, depending on your perspective). Sdrqaz (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very familiar. CMD (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

But if you would like to save everyone some time in the next two hours, blocking the remaining 8 and 9 May reports would be helpful. Another one has just been reactivated and we may as well make them move on to the ones we don't literally already have listed. CMD (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If I may suggest, it might be better to wait for an admin to ban and revert the account, instead of engaging in an edit war which messes up your history page. I think your talkpage has got sufficient watchers now, including me. Seloloving (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I've increased the protection on your talk page to extended-confirmed. I heavily dislike protection of user talk pages in general, but I think it would have been selfish of me not to have done so in this instance. In addition to my block of Feret500, I've blocked Bersablert (from July 2021, but active today) and Painteyuyrt (from June 2021, but also active today). Sdrqaz (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC); edited 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered about my talkpage if you're feeling uncomfortable (although semi seems to be required). However, thinking it over, it actually reduces disruption in the article space, such as Painteyuyrt which you managed to catch during the get-to-auto spree (I'll go and check those now). Thanks for the idea Seloloving, but then how would we all get our edit counts up? CMD (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following the increase in protection at User:Chipmunkdavis. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting/Archive/1 § 08 May 2021 and Special:Permalink/1091732068 § 30 May 2022 (2). Indentation of a message was slightly altered.

Rod Macalpine-Downie

Hello - Thanks for fixing the Rod Macalpine-Downie page. This was the first time I'd tried to move a page, something which turned out to be less-than-successful. Really appreciate your work to undo the 'damage' I'd done. Kind Regards. Aerohydro (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aerohydro: No damage done; it was wonderfully challenging to carry out, with both a history split and a history merge to do. Thank you for the message, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was regarding these actions to merge Roderick Macalpine Downie into Rod Macalpine-Downie.

How did you verify that H B Walikar is a Vice Chancellor of a University unless you know him? It is written there he is but the link is broken. Help me.

How did you verify that H B Walikar is a Vice Chancellor of a University unless you know him? It is written there he is but the link is broken. Help me.At-Bankikodla (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@At-Bankikodla: I just added an archived copy to the citation. Now it can be verified. Aithus (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not Found

The requested URL was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. At-Bankikodla (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Aithus. @At-Bankikodla: The edit made by Aithus added a link here. You need to click on the "Vice–Chancellor" link in the references. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the G7 CSD nomination of H. B. Walikar with the edit summary of "nothing or no links to verify" that was converted into an A7 nomination, which was subsequently declined.

Draft:Amirhossein Mahmoodi

Thanks for the response on Draft:Amirhossein Mahmoodi. It's likely the same socks, but since it was posted back in January 2022 and not actively worked on since then, it's just got another month or so before G13 will kick in. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Unfortunately, since we're both humans (though I'm not as sure for you, given your username and signature ) and we both edited the draft, it'll be another six months. Before the two of us, the last human edit was last week. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, if it's going to extend another six months, I'll cut out the unsourced stuff then. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of a G4 CSD nomination of Draft:Amirhossein Mahmoodi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Mahmoodi ended with a G5 deletion.

The User (The Bloodhound) Unblock

Dear Sqrqaz, Honestly, i fully agree with the user himself before you accuse him of sockpuppeting you should gather enough evidence like he said (Compare IP Addresses) and stuff like that.

Thank You :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:264C:CE00:3015:D34F:782A:3F02 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thankfully, someone who can do such comparisons (and another before her) gathered your evidence. Block evasion isn't going to help your case, Bloodhound. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Bloodhound.

Reason for deleting draft: Denis Yip

Hello Sdrqaz, I have receive a message earlier asking me to provide more secondary and reliable sources of draft: Denis Yip. Hence, I changed and added more sources from medias to support the data inside and re-submit the page for review. However, the draft: Denis Yip's content was all deleted earlier today. May I know the reason for that? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Biu (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. Sorry about my accidental reversion of your comment. I deleted Denis Yip on Friday (3 June) because you had added {{Db-g7}} to the page. This template, as the link shows, is meant to be added to a page when an author requests its deletion. However, as the template was added with incorrect code, another user helped you fix it. I assume that your addition of the template was an accident, so have restored the page now. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

redirect confusion

Hi! Thanks for your help with AN/PVS-8's redirect. I was actually in the process of reverting it and adding the RfD when I saw your changes. Thanks, I'm still figuring this stuff out. And thanks for the tip about discussion tools in preferences. Did not know those beta features were there.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, Jasonkwe, and thanks for letting me know. You may want to install Twinkle to make things easier in the future, since you accidentally added your notification to his userpage instead of his talk page. Discussion Tools is one of the best products by the Foundation in years, I think. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Oops, thanks for pointing that out and thanks for the recommendation! I did see that that editor is likely retired at this point but I wanted to do it correctly. Working with wikitext still feels like when I took a basic class in Java and was trying to write a program in notepad: possible to do? Yeah. Error prone because I'm seeing just bare text? Definitely lol.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe: I saw that too, so I guess the chances of their adding to the discussion is relatively low. I've been there with wikitext too – I need to use the "show preview" button quite often. I noticed that you've discovered VisualEditor. Hopefully that makes things easier, even if it isn't available on talk pages like this (though Discussion Tools does have a visual mode). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz Yeahh, I like visual editor for the cleanness it lets me see the text I'm working on but it's not great for interacting with some stuff like infoboxes or citations. I like list defined citations because it keeps most of the citations out of the way but visualeditor doesn't let you use list-defined citations. I know that visual editor kinda does that for you (keeps the citations out of the way) but it just doesn't feel as intuitive as source view *shrug. So, I switch between visualeditor and source as needed and use preview a ton like you. And ever since I lost a bunch of unsaved edits on an article, I just copy paste the entire article over to one of my sandboxes and edit it there where I can save periodically. Not sure if there's a better way but it kinda works. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe: I don't believe I've ever used list-defined references, though I have tried VisualEditor but never really got used to it (my last five edits with it go back six years, to the same month of my registration). Losing work due to the internet is the worst. For copies to sandboxes, you need to attribute such copies ("copied from Example article; see its history for attribution" is fine, I'd say). I tend to copy stuff to a notepad app instead of an on-wiki sandbox, but I see why people do it (especially since you said it's hard visualising the edits). Sdrqaz (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of a CSD nomination of AN/PVS-8. The redirect was subsequently deleted following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18 § AN/PVS-8.

Request for assistance at Accenture and Julie Sweet articles

Hello, Sdrqaz! A while back you helped review a request of mine for the Accenture article. If you are still interested in reviewing edit requests for Accenture, I recently posted this request at Talk:Accenture and this request for company CEO Julie Sweet. I'm submitting these requests on behalf of Accenture, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on those articles' Talk pages. I appreciate your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to get to them, but have not done any COI edit requests in a while. I'm also aware that the 198-request backlog at Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests stretches back over a month, albeit it is not as bad as it was months ago. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Special:Permalink/996778612 § November 2020 update request, Special:Permalink/1101138197 § Spring 2022 updates, and Special:Permalink/1098390871 § Spring 2022 updates.

Redirect

Hello. It was created by mistake. It's totally wrong, random. If you don't see how redirect may be spam - do you want me to create 5 or 10 more random redirects like given example? Eurohunter (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Eurohunter, as you're probably aware (you've been editing longer than me), Wikipedia has a different understanding of spam. Pages can only be deleted as spam if they are unambiguously promotional. Given that you and RHaworth have been adding and removing deletion templates to both Party in the house and Fiesta in the house for the last four years, I think it's fair to say that a speedy deletion in this instance would be controversial. As I told you, Redirects for Discussion is probably best if you want them to be deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: "do you want me to create 5 or 10 more random redirects like given example?" isn't enough clear? Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I'm constrained by policy in what I can delete. I advise you to make your case at RfD. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of the CSD nomination of Fiesta in the house.

Page disappear from search engine

Dear Sdrqaz

I have amended the page Denis Yip according your instruction, adding reliable secondary source for the content. The page was able to search in Google last week. However, when I search it again this week, the page disappear from the search engine. May I know the reason? Thank you so much~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Biu (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael, I didn't give you any instructions: it was someone else. Denis Yip has disappeared from search engines because it was marked as unreviewed by GeoffreyT2000; you will have to ask him why that happened. I believe it will become eligible for search engine indexing at the end of the month. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion regarding WP:DEADNAMING and WP:REVDEL at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2022 archive § Should wording be added linking REVDEL as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING? and this parallel discussion.

Regarding the A1 CSD nomination I made

Oh hi, I see you reverted my edit on Durgeshwar Lal. I see that I made a mistake in adding a CSD for that article, but in my defense, the article was very illegible to even understand before you made it (thankfully) more understandable. The guy just put the words 'durgeshwar lal currently sitting MLA of purola vidhansabha uttrakhand' and thought that was good enough. In retrospect, I should have put a 'needs copyediting' tag before deciding to delete it. Thank you. Spodle^Talk 01:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Spodle, A1 should only be used when you cannot figure out what the subject is. It certainly wasn't amazing writing and had issues with capitalisation (I know it's frustrating), but the version at creation certainly had enough for me to figure out what was going on. A1 is written so that it can rarely be used (even the title comes into consideration for context). Thank you for the message, Sdrqaz (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: See my changes since the nomination.

IP getting spicy after block

Hello there! You blocked User talk:2601:248:8200:D240:359B:D99:8C85:3866 earlier this evening, and they've been getting pretty unwound on their talk page. Any chance you could please remove access for the duration of their block? Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tony Fox: You left that just as I was reblocking them . Given their block log, I should've blocked them without talk page access pre-emptively, but you live and learn. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a real charmer, that one. Thank you! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Betty White

Hello, Sdrqaz,

I see you have encountered our vandal from Louisville, Kentucky. He has been traveling over June throughout the Southern states but posting the same vandalism during his trip. For female celebrities, he talks about their genitals and rape, for male celebrities, he talks about what monsters they are and how they ravish young women. It's the same content over and over again now for at least two years. It's typically targeting Hollywood actors and actresses but for a while, he was going after 19th century U.S. Presidents, posting the same content that has to be revision deleted. He/She watches protection and I've seen him return the day after page protection expired. It's really exhausting as he both goes back to older targets, like Betty White or John Travolata, as well as targets new, unlikely personalities. I wish there was a way to do a range block but it would be a lot of different ranges and I think we would take out much of the city of Louisville. At least, we have very vigilant page patrollers who revert the edits pretty quickly after they are made but it can go on quite a while before an admin gets around to protecting the article. The longer the protection, the better, if it is imposed for 3 days, he'll just start up again on day 4.

We also have a similar vandal who targets Bollywood actresses, says terrible things and their IP always geolocates to Bhubaneswar, but, luckily, I haven't seen them around lately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I have, Liz (sorry for the late reply). I believe I first encountered CalebHughes in July 2021 at our article on Anthony Hopkins (now suppressed, but the protection request I made at the time lives on). They're capable of accomplishing a lot of disruption in short periods of time, though that is sometimes reduced when someone calls for help at #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. I'm personally unconvinced that some of the Betty White material needs deletion – quite a lot of it is similar to what a "regular" vandal might put. Much of the 19th-century president stuff shouldn't really need deletion either, given that they're long-dead. Speaking of punctuality, Caleb as 2600:1700:4854:800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been making edits at the end of June for three years running, with zero edits at other times. I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the Bhubaneswar vandal – I know of one from that country who spends their time spamming death threats in articles, but they're usually dealt with swiftly. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was prompted by log entries #133436094 and #133436290.

Regarding the two pages I tagged as G10

Hi. The page that you deleted under the G3 rationale, I tagged as G10 because it said to the reader that they were sus (suspicious, which can be leveraged as an insult) - and I thought that an attack page was a page that is specifically designed to attack the subject or any other entity (I thought the reader was an entity). Another page which was not deleted I tagged under a G10 rationale told the reader that the person who wrote this page was better than them, which I also thought was an attack on the reader (refer to previous point I made about the first page). Can you please clarify this (is the reader an entity or not)? Thanks. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 04:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, Train of Knowledge. It's probably worth first saying that the line between G3 and G10 is a fuzzy one, where many pages that are deleted as G10 can also be deleted under G3 and vice versa. That being said, I consider G10 to be a generally higher bar than G3, because G10s need to "disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" (emphasis mine).

Looking at User:FuzzyAnimal2/sandbox (the first of the pages), I know of the background behind that term, but I think that "sus" is very weak and the "target" being the reader (unlike someone specific, like me) means that the potential for feeling disparaged or threatened etc is very very low. That felt more like regular vandalism than something that can be considered an attack page. As for User:Strawberry5754/sandbox (the second of the pages), I view "Hi i'm better than you" to be more a boast than an actual attack against the reader. However, I believed that it would be too bitey to delete it as unambiguous promotion, as it felt like a simple joke (I could say that the first one was one too).

To answer your question at the end, I would say no. For me, an entity needs to be relatively well-defined, while "the reader" is not (the reader could be anyone with internet access, really). For pages that you believe attack the reader, I think tagging it with {{db-vandalism}} would be fine, unless you believe the attack to be particularly egregious (like accusations of murder, paedophilia, or usage of slurs). Please ask if there's further clarification needed. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand now. Thanks :) Train of Knowledge (Talk) 07:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, don't mind the revert at all, but see:

[1] , I feel they should learn to properly format images rather than having others clean up after them. Best, Jip Orlando (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Jip. Thanks for letting me know and for leaving them a message. I can understand their initial edit – adding a picture when one wasn't there means you have fewer points of comparison – but replacing an existing one with another should be easier. We were all new once ... Sdrqaz (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the reversion of this edit at Governorpet.

Possible Error

Hi, I am ICBP. I saw this edit of yours. You had also pinged me to the edit as well. What did you mean through the edit? Why did you remove the wikiproject tag? Is there any problem with the redirect? Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 02:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, I removed the tag because it implied that it was created through AfC, when it was not. As I wrote in the edit summary, I created the redirect and I am not an AfC reviewer. Since such tags appear on the talk pages of articles and redirects created through that process, it'd be misleading for it to be there. I assume that you intended to create that redirect yourself? To answer your last question, I don't think that there are any problems with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hard blocks

Please don't do hard blocks on IP addresses. It often causes collateral damage, and you can't judge when there's too much collateral without having access to the CU tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: It is not reasonable to ask someone to forgo all hard blocks on IP addresses. Given 134046076, I assume you're talking about 105.105.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). For that range block, I did ask multiple times for a CheckUser to help me assess collateral, but none were available. Given CafeGurrier66's fourteen tagged accounts and the clear disruption logged-out going back weeks (12 July and 13 July reports), I judged that a week's block was within discretion (while conscious of how wide a /16 is) and noted that it was a hard block at SPI. That report was archived by a CheckUser. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been a CheckUser for five years, have done thousands of hard blocks, and routinely assess collateral damage. I am telling you that even if you didn't this time, you will eventually cause massive collateral damage. In some countries or some ISPs, there are dozens of people on the same IP address. And that's just a single IP address, not even an IP range. You can't even get the CU tool to work on some IP ranges because there are so many editors that the data overloads the WMF servers. This happens sometimes on a IPv4 /24. You can't know this, so I don't blame you for thinking, "Oh, it's fine, I'll just use my discretion. What's the worst that could happen?" I am telling you, from years of experience, that what will happen is massive collateral damage – the kind that stops thousands of people from editing Wikipedia. I used to be even harsher in my range blocks than I am now, but I got angry emails from people who couldn't edit. I blocked what was clearly a webhost, and it turned out to be municipal wifi for London. I blocked what was obviously a proxy, and it turned out to be a service used by multiple multinational corporations to manage their workforce. Even as a CheckUser with those years of experience I mentioned, I get this stuff wrong, mostly because I exercised discretion and didn't check for collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That /16 hard block was extreme and was too much (or at the very least, I should have posted for a more specific review at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations § Quick CheckUser requests instead of leaving it to the archiving CheckUser). But following your comments I have felt unable to enact hard blocks against single IPv4 addresses, even where they have a long history of using both accounts and IPs. Take the latest iteration of CalebHughes today at Russell Crowe. My anon-only block was converted into a hard one because both LuK3 and I know that Caleb has a long history of causing great disruption with accounts as well. Favonian's block yesterday was also converted into a hard block by Zzuuzz. Can't I enact limited hard blocks against such disruption? Sdrqaz (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(tps) In general I advise to do hard blocks for CalebHughes, yes please .. assuming common sense, not range blocks, and that it's not longer than about a week. This is because CalebHughes usually intends to get a soft block and then use sleeper accounts on the same address. For anything more complicated, or longer term, I'm more than happy to advise. I can't think of many similar cases off the top of my head. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. What are your thoughts on hard blocks for DeepNikita (example IP, example account)? Sdrqaz (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, now you come to mention it, yes them too. At least it probably won't hurt and may help. Again, mostly the shorter type of block and using common sense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete and Move the Page

Please do not delete and move the page of Washington Elementary School and Roosevelt Elementary School, When it's not a allowed without permission.

From: JonHenryLao

Since 01:55, 24 July 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonHenryLao (talk • contribs)

I deleted Washington Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey) because it was a redirect left behind after it was moved to draftspace. Given that it has now been recreated in the mainspace and is now at AfD with what seems to shaping up to look like a "redirect" result, I don't anticipate deleting it again. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Barron Trump

Okay, I can see that a close of Redirect doesn't support a Delete, and you did a Redirect on the article. I have reported the gaming of the title at WP:ANI. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I know that this is probably too late, Robert, since Bishonen has topic-banned them, but the content at the standalone articles (Barron W. Trump and Barron Trump Knauss) is quite similar to the family article. Given that they weren't warned on their talk page following the 17 July redirecting, this seems more like good-faith (disruptive) behaviour than malicious gaming. Maybe I'm stretching my AGF a little too much here, given that Paulistafan hasn't ever used a user talk page or a mainspace talk page, but I thought it was worth saying. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Sdrqaz - I was aware that the text in the individual articles is the same as in the family article. However, the editor in question was trying to work around the decision that his name wasn't a stand-alone article. It doesn't matter, to me, whether he was being good-faith disruptive or bad-faith disruptive. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, your ping here made me go look, and I see Paulistafan has violated the topic ban many times. Likely enough they don't know they have a talkpage. I have blocked for a month, with a note in the block log that I hope will help them discover their page. If they respond to me in a reasonable way, I'll unblock right away. Btw, the new page they have created, Ana Daniela Hernandez, is problematic in several ways, and they created it right into mainspace (now moved to draft). I feel we do need to stop them creating biographies, especially about those egregious "first daughters". Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC).

Thanks for looking into this, Bishonen, and for the commitment to unblock. They seem to edit in bursts every few days, but haven't edited in six – hopefully they'll log on before the block ends to see your message. I certainly don't love the sourcing in that draft. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Bishonen, they seem to have responded to your message, in case you weren't watching their talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, darn. I was watching but I still missed it. I've answered them now. Thanks very much, Sdrqaz. Bishonen | tålk 02:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC).

That is the eternal problem, isn't it? It's a lot harder to shut the door on a good-faith disruptor on Wikipedia. A vandal reported for adding "poop" to a couple of pages will be blocked soon enough. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of a G4 CSD nomination of Barron Trump Knauss. See Bishonen's comments at User talk:Paulistafan and her block log entry.

Thank you

Hi Sdrqaz - hope you are well. I've just seen your comment on the Arbcom case and wanted to thank you for posting it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts, when I left my first and second comment, I had a feeling that it was too late at 5–3. I'm sorry and saddened that it ended like this and also find it hard to believe your parting statement – given the scrutiny you've been under for years, the likelihood of such systemic violations slipping through is small. I don't believe you had malicious intent when working here. There's a lot of hurt that caused that statement, and I know that you can't reply here, but there are other methods. Take care, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision.

Commonwealth Games boxer articles

Hi, thanks for reviewing the A7 nominations of the articles about the boxers at the Commonwealth Games. At the time of nomination, these articles were one line stubs that merely suggested participation. I delved into the guidelines to see if these articles met notability requirements and I decided under much deliberation that they didn’t meet WP:NBOXING. Clearly this was wrong, however this seems to be a mistake I keep making, and to be frank it’s a little embarrassing. Do you have any tips about how I can help avoid tagging articles incorrectly in future? I only want to get better at this. Osarius 06:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Osarius, sorry for the very late reply: this has been a poor, poor month with regards to responsiveness for me. I would argue that those articles (Phiwokuhle Mnguni, Cynthia Ogunsemilore, and (Elizabeth Oshoba) meet NBOXING because they "have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament", with their affiliations here. Even without that notability guideline, I think the key thing to remember about A7 and credible claims of significance is that it's a very low bar. Meeting a criterion for speedy deletion means a page can be deleted on sight by any administrator; this is why the criteria are generally written quite conservatively, to the frustration of many new page patrollers.

"x is a boxer" usually fails A7 because there's nothing significant being asserted. Even with such a seemingly-obvious case, I would still do a quick online search of the article's name to see if there's any other information available (NPPLinks.js makes that a quicker process); maybe the article's writer is still working on the page. I would say that simple participation in high-level international tournaments is usually enough to clear the "credible claim of significance" bar. Up until an RfC this year, for example, association footballers who had played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues were considered notable (that didn't even require for it to be an international match). As tedious as it may sound, I would advise reading the relevant criterion when considering whether to tag a page – the actual text at WP:CSD, not just the summary in the Twinkle menu. While Twinkle as a tool is great (though I would say I used it more as a non-administrator), the summaries it gives are slightly simplistic and often don't capture the exceptions and nuances listed in the actual policy text. I very often re-check the criteria when I delete pages, even when I've deleted pages under a specific criterion over and over again, because I don't want to make mistakes. Caution is crucial. If you think that someone may disagree with your speedy deletion tag, use a PROD or the AfD process instead.

It's important to remember that editors are human and will make mistakes (Q3). The fact that you've come here and asked for advice (even if that advice is coming far too late) with the desire to improve is undoubtedly a positive thing. Keep it up, and please ask if you want any clarifications or have further questions. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, MPGuy2824 ! Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Blanking talk page during active block

Hey. Not to have the extra discussion on the other IP user's page, but The Blade of the Northern Lights said that while dealing with a SOCK a few days ago. Is there any page/policy you could point me to, because I am not sure which admin is correct. lol Elijahandskip (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Elijahandskip. In my message I linked to WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, which doesn't allow the removal of declined unblock requests of current blocks (FYI The Blade of the Northern Lights, since you've been mentioned). Speaking from a personal perspective I don't really like the guideline – if a user makes an unblock request that is declined and then gives up on appealing and wants to blank their talk page, forcing them to keep that on their talk page seems unnecessary and not worth fighting over. If they want to make a fresh unblock appeal, by all means restore the prior conversations and unblock appeals to make it easier for the next reviewing administrator, though I'd suggest that any administrator worth their salt should be able to look through the talk page history to figure out what happened previously. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Belorussian Dino

Hello, the CSD U5 was declined as Wikipedia does allow limited biographical information on a Userpage. However this new editor has a link to his/her Twitter page. Per WP:UP#PROMO we don't allow promotional links, but are links to personal social media acceptable? Other administors have deleted pages for having these links so I'd just like some guidance before tagging again. Blue Riband► 14:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Blue Riband, below the box at WP:UPYES it states that "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page". I think a link to one's Twitter profile (or other social media) would be considered that. The current issue with U5 is that a few administrators are interpreting it in an overly-bitey manner and using it as a catch-all for [thing I don't like in userspace]. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Good advice. I'll have to be more judicious before tagging U5 again. Blue Riband► 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of a U5 CSD nomination.

Jdhfox

Can you please unblock Jdhfox. He will redo deleted pages the right way this time with the right resources, citations, and references this time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B01B:3B58:0:51:3EDD:6801 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Jdhfox, you should not evade a block to appeal it. Your last sockpuppet, Jdh2.0, was only blocked less than a month ago. Stop creating new accounts, and stop editing Wikipedia while logged-out. After some time away from Wikipedia (six months is considered by many to be the "standard"), use UTRS after reading the guide to appealing blocks – write about why you think you were blocked, and why it won't happen again. A lot of the pages you created were not notable: while the guideline on MMA biographies may be useful, ultimately it would be best if they met the general notability guideline – the subjects need to have thorough coverage in independent, reliable sources. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Query regarding to be a true and volunteer Wikipedian

Hi 👋😊 I hope you will be safe and sound. I have keen interest in editing and providing information on Wikipedia to the best of my knowledge about my hometown Chaman & Quetta Balochistan. But, I do not have knowledge about which type of content should I add bcz whenever I add something after a few days it got deleted by the admins or the older users. Kindly provide the safest and correct of adding information on social media and what type of information should be added to this masterpiece ♥️ Plz mention Do's and Dont's !!! With due respect (Redacted) 182.183.250.162 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are safe and sound too. Did you read my response in December last year? A lot of your changes seem to be adding famous residents to cities. However, these changes do not contain any references, to allow other people to check if they truly come from that place, and what their job is. You may find the guide to referencing useful. I think that you also need to be careful on who you're adding to these articles. Are they notable? Have they had thorough coverage in independent, reliable sources? I think it would be easier for me to help you if you could explain what you mean by "adding information on social media", and what sort of information you want to add. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

CSD G4 and Gazipur Cantonment Board High School

Hey. I was wondering if I could convince you to take another look at this page. While you're correct in saying that it was a soft delete, this is now the second time that Saimum11 has tried to create the page as a draft, and after having it rejected re-created the page in the article space. Based on the comments at AfD, this was first attempted between February and July of this year, before happening again (last rejection, new article creation) in August and earlier today.

I'm still happy to AfD that if it's necessary, but I thought I'd ask first if you'd reconsider. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, Sideswipe, but I'm not sure what you want me to do here because my decision to not delete the article wasn't one option out of many – it was the only one possible because G4 "does not cover content ... that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as 'soft delete')". I am not going to delete the article against that policy. While creating articles against reviewers' wishes may not endear editors to patrollers, it ultimately isn't relevant to whether a page should be deleted under G4 because it is governed by strict rules. AfC's purpose is to identify which submissions will probably be deleted, and the WikiProject's members can make mistakes. Since it is, generally speaking, not a mandatory process, editors can try to pursue publication despite declinations. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Aaaah, got it! I'll make a new AfD for it now. Thanks for getting back to me :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of a G4 CSD nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazipur Cantonment Board High School (2nd nomination).

User:C

Hey Sdrqaz, sorry to bother you but I wanted to ask about this page. I nominated it under CSD:G2, which I understand was not correct.

In this case, a user with several hundred edits created a user page for another user and set it to redirect to their page. How do you suggest I nominate a page like this in the future if I come across it again? Should I just leave a custom explanation? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Josh. No need to apologise for asking me a question. I believe you mean U2, not G2. Célestin Denis created two redirects to their own userpage (User:CD and User:C). While one of them was deleted, I would say that there is no appropriate speedy deletion criterion. As it states on the Twinkle menu when you use a custom tag, "At least one of the other deletion criteria must still apply to the page, and you must make mention of this in your rationale. This is not a 'catch-all' for when you can't find any criteria that fit".

While I suppose that G6 is the closest criterion to fitting, there is considerable disquiet (permalink) about its badly-defined scope and misuse. If you see a page like this in the future, I would blank the page, as I did this time – the userpages can be dealt with without stretching the speedy deletion criteria and there's no urgent need to make the pages disappear. If the owner of the userpage (as in not the creator, but User:C or User:CD in this case) wants the page deleted, they can tag it with {{db-user}}. Prior to blanking, you could also discuss with the editor who created those redirects to see if they were willing to tag it with {{db-author}}. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I did mean U2, not G2.

Thank you for taking the time to reply and help shift my view a little bit. Blanking is something that I've historically strayed away from because it just felt wrong. Your explanation makes a lot of sense and this is something I'll work to improve on and practice moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, Josh. I think it depends a lot on your perspective – while blanking is obviously a drastic move (we often associate it with vandals, to the point that patrollers often instinctively revert someone blanking a page, even if they were blanking a page they created [administrator-only link, sorry]), in my opinion we sometimes forget that deletion is many times more radical. Thanks for reaching out and for the commitment. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding [[Special:Diff/1109242880/prev|the declination}} of a U2 CSD nomination.

Latest GorillaWarfare harrasser (the one with the address)

You or another admin should probably scrub that username from edit summaries, as I suspect it is a doxx. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 04:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Said material has been scrubbed (it was revision deleted in minutes, with suppression coming some time after). LilianaUwU, when encountering such material in the future, please do not request revision deletion publicly – we should not draw attention to it. Please either email me or contact the Oversight team; administrators can also be contacted at #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, calling out publicly was stupid from me. I'll keep the Oversight link nearby if it happens again. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 05:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't add a link or write what the address was here, Liliana, so I'd say you did alright, given that you knew I was online . It could've been far worse – I've seen an administrator draw attention to suppressible information at AN ... Sdrqaz (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Sdrqaz,

Thank you for restoring those pages that were deleted when main space articles were mistakenly moved to Draft space. In one case, it was the page creator who moved the article to Draft space and the other was a longtime contributor who didn't seem to know that older articles shouldn't be draftified. When I come across these pages on a list of page moves, from main space to Draft space, there isn't much information provided on the circumstances of the move so I just deleted them redirects as CSD R2s and Twinkle deletes any associated redirects from the main space article or talk page. Usually any page move errors for the day are caught before the move list is generated around 01:18 UTC which is the list I work with. Any way, thanks for cleaning up these errors. I appreciate it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, Liz. I wish we had Special:WhatLinksHere for deleted pages (we do, but I mean searching for pages that once linked to those pages). When I do R2s, I check the history of the draft as well; I don't delete ones that come about because a patroller refused to follow the draftification guideline. Navigation popups makes it easier. I know that other administrators aren't as fussy, however. I believe I had come across the draftification of FC Chernihiv due to the G8 nominations of Talk:Yuriy Sinitsa and Talk:Yuri Sinitsa. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was following these page moves and restorations.

Noble Babu Thomas

I was just about to self-revert the speedy deletion, but you beat me to it, thanks. It looks pretty "substantially identical" in the Wayback'd version: [2]. But rules are rules. Storchy (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. It's an interesting case, Storchy – usually G4s are declined because the new copy is better than the old one, rather than the other way around. If I were to nitpick, I would say that it is the version that was deleted at AfD that matters: "deleted per a deletion discussion" after all. I'd say that the version you tagged is worse than that 2019 version, but whether it's substantially identical ... I suppose reasonable people can disagree on that one, though looking at the version now, it seems like someone else has discovered the Wayback Machine. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of a G4 CSD nomination.

Leading Reporters Page Deleted

Hello, Sdrqaz, I'm sorry to bother you, but I wanted to ask a favour. I was wondering if I could convince you to take another look at this page (Leading Reporters). You flagged it for speedy deletion because of A7 and G11 as I did not intentionally decide to advertise or promote this page, but I created it in order to give it a more meaningful context and some level of in-depth knowledge.

I would really appreciate it if the page could be restored to draft so that I could fundamentally rewrite the page to serve as an encyclopedia article. Or should I go on to create a new page article while putting G11 into consideration?

Please and thank you. Gevangfrank (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gevangfrank. While I understand that you didn't intend to promote the website, it was effectively an advertisement – things like "at the fore of promoting peace journalism, accountability and morality in leadership; human unity, social cohesion and good governance" are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. While it was tagged as having no indication of importance, I deleted it as unambiguous promotion. As I only delete pages as such when it is truly unambiguous, I suspect that restoring it to draftspace will lead to a similar result. Moreover, the page had long quotes from https://leadingreporters.com/about/ that I did not view as necessary. I will therefore not restore the page, sorry. However, I have posted the contents of the infobox here if you wish to use that material; the link will expire after a month. Please also take note of the requirements for both paid editors and editors with a conflict of interest. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Still learning the right way to use the revdel tool. I thought I had to revdel the reverting diffs as well, but doesn't appear that's the case. Thanks for the cleanup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, ScottishFinnishRadish. You only need to delete the revisions where the material appeared, but where a reversion was incomplete (or where someone else edited in the intervening period, messing up rollback), you may have to end up deleting patrollers' edits too. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was following these actions at User talk:Taking Out The Trash.

User:The Timeless Designer

Hello Sdrqaz, would you be willing to take another look at User:The Timeless Designer? You declined deletion as it didn't appear promotional yet the weblink he/she posted there directs to a website for their graphic and interior design services. Maybe I'm misreading something but that sure looks like promotion to me. The Username is also the same name as that of their company. Blue Riband► 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Blue Riband, I think that my response here would be significantly different if it were something like "I'm the co-founder of [company]; click [link] for the best prices for our services!" or "[Link] is the best company, guaranteed to bring you satisfaction!" etc, but the content of the page is "I'm the co-founder of [link]" and nothing else. I think that the framing around the link matters – the mere presence of the website does not mean automatic deletion.

A common response I've found from those with promotional usernames is that even though they are violations of policy (hence Oshwah's block, resolving that issue), many of them view it as an effort to be transparent about who they are and being upfront about their conflicts of interest, and I think that the user page this person created was a reasonable way of achieving that goal.

This is all a long-winded way to say that I have taken another look at the user page, and still will not delete it, sorry. I don't love the page, but I don't think it reaches the "exclusively promotional" bar of G11 either. Thank you for asking. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply with your reasoning. While I don't agree, I'll respect your decision. As you noted the account is blocked so it's a moot point. Blue Riband► 00:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the declination of a G11 CSD nomination.

Confusion

Hi Sdrqaz, I saw you're an Administrator on Wikipedia after you wrote to me on my talk page and I'm not exactly sure who to communicate to about this but an admin reverted the article of a micronation I made back into a redirect. I understand if it lacks notability but I questioned the admin about it and he says its because of undue weight violation, but I have done my best to write the article as neutrally as possible? (view version history for Verdis). He says it promotes something that doesn't have status in reality, but saying that would mean every other micronation including Liberland which is near the micronation I wrote about would have to go. I don't think he understands the definition of micronation and instead things I'm writing about an actual unrecognised state. Could I be misunderstanding something? A lot of micronations I've seen have been written and approved which barely any references, but I have put independent ones from Journals of Law, Pagina 12 and many other known news stations particularly in Croatia, Serbia and Argentina. Could you please look into this? If I am wrong, could you help me understand so that I don't make these mistakes on future edits? I put a lot of work and research into that wiki page. Thanks. MicroSupporter (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: See the unprotection of Verdis for a redirect, the history of that page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination), and this November 2023 request at RfPP.

User:Crumpkin69

I apologize for edit-warring on this user's talk page but their Talk page edits are solely vandalism. Would it be possible to revoke his TPA. Thanks, Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Revoked, but it is not an endorsement of that edit-warring. Magnatyrannus, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, the instantaneous reverts in this instance seemed to just entertain and encourage the blocked user ("have fun luza" etc). Given that talk pages of vandals have such low visibility and the vandalism is just "c u latuh luzas", it's not worth your time. If you want proof on the encouragement aspect, from 00:26 to 00:32 (UTC), there were 14 reversions. After that, you reverted at 00:37. Talk page access was revoked at 00:42. There was zero disruption in the ten minutes from 00:32 to 00:42, and 14 reversions in the six minutes before that. Ponyo's comment about poking the bear seems to apply here. Just let it be. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What would have been an easier thing to do instead of reverting? Simply blanking their talk page? I don't know, but if this LTA pops up again, surely their TPA will have to be revoked. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Magnatyrannus Ignore them? They're not going to do any more damage outside of their talk page if they are block. The effort of reverting would've been better put at monitoring recent changes, or TFA. Deny and move on. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 04:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted above, just let it be; leave it alone. Blanking and reversion ultimately leads to the same problems: encouraging them to continue edit-warring with you. I get reverting when it's a reader-facing article. But this isn't one. And is this really an LTA, or at least the same one that has disrupted the last few TFAs? If they're going to the effort of getting autoconfirmed socks, like at Yusuf I of Granada, they use it for greater disruption than just adding information about TikTok ... Sdrqaz (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fehufanga Yes, the user in question is indeed an LTA. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz, again, please revoke the TPA of FA vandals, so that this issue doesn't happen again, like the one you just blocked recently. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnatyrannus, if you don't look at their talk page it's like they never posted anything at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've said above, leave it alone. If there is continued abuse, sure, but this is very mild and the chance of it continuing is low if you just ignore it. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Revoke TPA ASAP

Please revoke the TPA of GraceyDeSanta ASAP. They are leaving severe personal attacks on their talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Revoked, at 15:10, 20 October 2022. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Need access to Uday Mandal

We need to create a page about Uday Mandal trending in News. He is notable person the President of Samata Party. May news covering him for Samata Party vs Shiv sena controversy. Please grant access to create that page. Thank You, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trup001 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Trup001: Uday Mandal was deleted three times (twice as a community decision, in April 2021 and in February 2022). As a result, I am hesitant to unprotect that article title without seeing if your proposed article is significantly different from the ones deleted. Please create Draft:Uday Mandal and submit it via the Articles for Creation process, making sure that you have reliable sources that are covering Mandal in good detail.

Based on what you've told me and an online search, it seems like Mandal is being mentioned a lot in the news due to what he's saying on behalf of the party, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of information about him as a person. If that is true, it may not be appropriate to have an article on him yet. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: See logs of that page.

Not notified of speedy deletion of redirect

Hey! I noticed that you said to please notify users of the speedy deletion of the redirect. I tagged it with Twinkle so it should've automatically notified the redirect creator, did it not? If it didn't then I apologize as it should've done so (and normally does). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf, you did not notify the user, unfortunately. It seems like the default Twinkle preferences are that you do not send a notification to the author when tagging a page for R3. I don't know why that is the case, but you can customise it so that it does: see my preferences since June last year. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

How strange. I'll probably bring it up on the Twinkle talk page as that makes absolutely no sense. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, Blaze. In the meantime, you can change your preferences so that it doesn't happen again, as I'm not sure how fast the turnaround is on such requests. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There are some CSD criteria where Twinkle doesn't notify the page creator, I know G7 for sure and perhaps G6 as well. I have my Preferences all set up properly and I've even manually checked off the Notify page creator box when doing these type of deletions and still, no notification is made. I'm very pro-notification so it's frustrating to me when this happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That's annoying. I suppose that a G7 notification would often not be that useful, unless the author had blanked it not knowing that it'd be taken as a deletion request. {{db-author-deleted}} is a redlink at the moment – maybe it'd be useful to have something roughly along the lines of

You blanked [page] and it's been deleted because we interpret that as an author's request. If that was a mistake and you want it restored, please make a request at WP:REFUND. In the future, you can add {{db-author}} to a page when you want it to be deleted, provided that you're the only substantial author.

Sdrqaz (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually like that idea. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was regarding the declination of the R3 CSD nomination of Thng Tekchiong Memorial Park.

British Govt Front Bench

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Government_frontbench#Law_and_order

Can to add the PC tag to Lord Stewart? I keep messing it up. TY.

TShape12 (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@TShape12: Is the Lord Stewart of Dirleton a Privy Counsellor? I've looked at the Council, government, and House of Lords websites and can't find information on that. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh then his wiki page must be wrong. TShape12 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

His article wasn't wrong, TShape12, as barons have the right to that style regardless of membership of the Privy Council. See The Right Honourable § Peers. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok then I'll revert. But then can you add the tag on the British Government frontbench for him? Every time I try, I get a messed up table.TShape12 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz Can you help mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Government_frontbench#Social_services Nick Gibb and Robert Halfon, ever time I tiry the table gets messed up. Also can you add the PC tag to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Government_frontbench#Law_and_order Lord Stewart then? Thanks. TShape12 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@TShape12: Marked for Gibb and Halfon, but I'm not going to do it for the Lord Stewart of Dirleton – he's allowed to use The Right Honourable because he's a peer, but he's not a Privy Counsellor. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Have to check the Lords in the list who are tagged PC now. TShape12 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Am bahadur thapa 2.0

Hi, my bad on this one, I thought the edit summary was more promotional. Best, Jan Myšák (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Jan. I didn't think that the edit summary at creation ("itz me AM BAHADUR THAPA") was promotional either, if I'm honest. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was regarding the declination of a U5 CSD nomination.

Ruby Tandoh

Can you change it back to the redirect page (seen in this diff) please? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

George, please see my comments here (we seem to have published our edit at the same minute). Given that the current revision does not seem to contain "policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people" (WP:PREFER), I'd rather not. In line with the policy and guideline I cited at RfPP, I'd advise using AfD to garner a "higher" level of consensus and greater participation if the RfC does not give a clear answer. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: Message was regarding the protection of Ruby Tandoh. See the notice of declination at RfPP.

Religion in the UK.

Hello. You may not be aware that there is a newly created religion in the UK, made by the youtuber Maxmillian Fosh. (Max Fosh on youtube). He created the religion known as "Sillyism" with over 1.4million followers, making the religion the 3rd largest in the UK. I see that you have protected the wiki page untill the 23rd of november, please add Sillyism to the list. Thank you! Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knwugy6UwOo Zurde01 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Zurde01 (and welcome to Wikipedia). I am aware of "sillyism", since I watched that video before deciding to protect the Religion in the United Kingdom article. It seems to me that the video idea does not benefit from any official recognition – Fosh being allowed to use a hat in a driver's licence photo does not count. Moreover, the article is based on reliable sources like large surveys and censuses, while Fosh's programme claims its follower count from the number of YouTube subscribers he has (do all those people live in the UK? YouTube does not have a one-person-one-account policy, so how many of the accounts are actually duplicates? How many of those people are actually aware that they are now "followers" of a "religion"? The questions go on). For all the reasons I've cited, I'm not going to add that information in, sorry. If you want to request that someone else does it, you can go to the article, click "view source", and click the blue "submit an edit request" button. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6