User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 18

Hi! Not quite sure what to do here. It looks like the redirect has been replaced with a different article. Not sure if I should leave this up or restore the redirect. It's been tagged with notability + peacock in the meantime. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Schrödinger's jellyfish and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: who handled while I was asleep. Guessing the new account would be found similar to Laura eley and Hari Teah but they're not overlapping and probably actually all editing on behalf of their client. Star Mississippi 11:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, reading here, it seems @Usedtobecool had figured out the master. Flagging the new ones if you think there's something worth filing. I don't have the history beyond the AfD. Star Mississippi 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, SM. I don't remember much. I probably did not identify the master, may have simply been checking what they might say having noticed the socking activity in the page history. Hari Teah was pushing an older Sam and it appears to have been a simple COI as they said. Hari Teah was a collaborator of that Sam Williams[1]. The new account is an obvious UPE pushing a different topic: created an account, waited a couple days, created a userpage, made a few newcomer task edits, and jumped straight into the article with a full article in a single edit, using an edit summary intended to throw off watchers. It can be blocked as a suspected UPE and suspected sock of Smagzine based on this comparison:[2][3]. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging LilianaUwU. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That Kashisaz account is definitely a sock of Smagzine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Usedtobecool @LilianaUwU for the background

My on wiki time is limited but Sam Williams (artist) tagged as it's a verbatim of the one at the other title, "new" editor blocked for DE since I don 't have bandwidth for SPI right now and I know it's also backlogged. Star Mississippi 12:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that Laura eley and Hari Teah wanted to write about the older Sam Williams, not the 2003 one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

that's what I get for trying to read logs before coffee! Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and fixing ping above to @Jellyfish which the reply tool broke and I didn't catch. Star Mississippi 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this! Responding late as I haven't been on my computer in a bit. The writing set off a few alarm bells, glad to see they didn't ring for nothing. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi! I wanted to thank you for your post at ANI. I'll step back and not respond except for direct questions to me, of which I anticipate none. I also appreciate the way you phrased it as gentle advice; it made it much easier to swallow! Best, EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome @EducatedRedneck and apologies for the delay. It was definitely a general pointer to move the discussion forward, rather than something you'd done specifically. Star Mississippi 02:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi. I noticed you closed the above AFD on a footballer as "redirect" last month. The discussion was flawed as a quick search shows that he is indeed notable, with several in-depth stories available on Newspapers.com ([4] / [5]). One of them even mentioned the North Korean government propaganda radio station called Bong-zin as being a much better player than Pele! Am I allowed to simply revert the redirect (and add sources / expand, of course), or do I have to go through some process to get it restored? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BeanieFan11. We don't have soft redirect, but given that was borderline soft if it had been deletion, I think this is functionally a contested PROD in that we don't need REFUND/DRV especially since you're an established editor with track record of improving articles. What's your timeline for making the edits? If today/this weekend I'd say just revert the close pointing here so no patrolling editor questions it as out of process. If longer term, I'll draftify it for you and you can move it back when you're done. No preference on my end so let me know your thoughts. Star Mississippi 17:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I probably should be able to get to it within a week. I think I'll just revert it when I'm ready and then perform the expansion. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm not watching the article so just ping me if you need anything from me related to it (or any other article). Have a good day. Star Mississippi 17:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for the response. Pardon the delay, but I've just started a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Sri Yala Batik. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, if I have anything further to add I'll do so there to keep it central. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Star Mississippi, please I want you to assist me restore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ndifreke Ukpong to draft.

I made the same request @User:Liz talk page. please don't be angry.

Usimite (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Answered at User_talk:Liz#Request_for_deleted_article Star Mississippi 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you redirect an article that clearly passes GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SportingFlyer. As was the case with #Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosaso FC above, the community doesn't see these the same way you do. There were two relists without anyone else agreeing with your POV that it was notable. The Portuguese article would not pass en wiki guidelines, and it's not clear that the sourcing you identified is sufficient. I see no other way of closing the discussion. Since this has been relisted twice, I don't see the benefit in a 3rd. If you disagree with my close (vs. consensus) and would like to take this to DRV, please feel free. Star Mississippi 01:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not that anyone agreed or disagreed - no one even interacted with the WP:THREE sources which were presented. And there's plenty of sources available for this one - these [6] [7] [8] articles were all from the start of this year. I know AfD participation is down, and that article wasn't in the best shape, but I believe I clearly rebutted the only deletion rationale, which was that it failed WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @SportingFlyer. AfD participation is down, and outside of major teams the interest level in stadiums has never appeared to be particularly high. No one interacted, or even cared to weigh in but I don't think that's enough to say your rebuttal is sufficient to overcome the nom and the redirects. I would relist, but there was zero input for three weeks and I don't see that (and therefore consensus) changing. If I were !voting I'd have assessed the sources as this link is about a game being cancelled, that's not in depth coverage of the stadium, this one might be usable, but it's about the stadium in the context of the series. I can't access the 3rd. But none of them (again, caveat that I've accessed) are the depth required. Unless you want to take this to DRV (which as I said, I welcome other eyes), I think your best course is using the history and maybe merging stadium information in. A merge would have been a super vote, but that's what would have seemed sensical to me if I'd seen this as an editor and not closing admin. Star Mississippi 12:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It'd be easier to draftify, honestly. I don't care enough about this particular article to save it, I'm just frustrated with the state of affairs at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 17:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Just tagged you where I responded at length about this state of affairs. Let me know if you're going to draftify or if you'd like me to. No preference on my end. Star Mississippi 18:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I was really hoping the redirect option would take but I guess too much mixed bag. :( What is the acceptable time frame to re-nom? S0091 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @S0091

Given the relatively high volume of discussion, I'd say ~ three-six months. I don't know that it's a hard rule, but it's what feels right so if you disagree, feel free to do it sooner. I'd say no sooner than a month and three has the benefit of getting out of summer participation dip.

You could start a discussion as to merger on the Talk in the interim, if that's something you might find acceptable. Star Mississippi 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, SM. I didn't consider the summer slump and merger might be the way to go but I'll wait a while either way. S0091 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Summer slump has been A Thing that Liz and I have noted, although I'm not sure it's overall worse than the general decline, so we may not see it this year. I hope not, we really can't afford a further dip and still achieve consensus in how certain subjects should be covered. Star Mississippi 01:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Can you tell me what the other !voters are talking about? I certainly can't tell. Srnec (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. And I've re-read their input and I don't see another way to close this discussion. That there was a community unfortunately doesn't necessarily confer notability to the topic. Star Mississippi 21:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what the other !voters are talking about. It is hard for me to take their statements in good faith. Srnec (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to make that ask of them, or file a DRV if you believe I closed it incorrectly. Otherwise I'm not sure what further information I can provide @Srnec Star Mississippi 01:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for handling questions about your closures with tact. I definitely couldn't. Mach61 03:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

I feel any editor asking in good faith deserves an answer. It's all a collaborative process, and I know I'm not infallible so maybe there's something I missed. Star Mississippi 12:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

You had recently deleted the wiki page football broadcast in India without any proper context. (I have read the discussion page for deletion and do not agree with the reasoning for deletion)

I request you to kindly restore the page as It is very important for Indian Football Fans Aditya Khanna Wikiepdia (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football broadcast in India was closed with a clear consensus. If you believe I closed it incorrectly, you're welcome to file a Deletion Review. However, simply disagreeing with the reasoning is not grounds for it being restored, and I cannot do so when there was a deletion discussion. Star Mississippi 02:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Star Mississippi, This is David Carnivale.I was disappointed you deleted my article; one I was proud to have for nearly 16 years, and I ask that you reconsider. The reason you gave was insufficient sourcing. Because it is understandably improper for people to edit or change their own page, and because I never knew anyone able to do so, I was unable to make a few corrections over the years, and the article missed the change to trademark law my lawsuit brought about - again, something I myself couldn't add. As an objective administrator, you can look at the corrections and updates I've made to bring the artic le up to date, and see that I have added many links to sources that you found wanting. Law journal articles, notices of awards given 20 years ago and some newspaper articles have links that - after many years - sometimes no longer work, but I have provided many that still do. Thank you for looking into this, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale

below contains what the article had for nearly 16 years, along with some corrections, some new updated material and sources for you to review and hopefully approve:

• Staten Island Advance. April 29, 2010"Reproduction of historic home under construction in Great Kills" by     Sharon Cohen

•Red Bank Green September 4, 2015

•Red Bank Green July 30th, 2015

•Red Bank Green July 12, 2016

https://www.redbankgreen.com/tag/david-john-carnivale/

2603:7000:6E3B:C199:3551:7BB6:1E3:C4EA (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, I deleted this per the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale and that consensus was fairly strong.

While I am willing to restore the sources you provided to to draftspace Talk, I would recommend that if I do so - you don't edit it. It's hard for anyone to take a neutral perspective on their career and to get the tone right for an encyclopedia vs. writing a biography or profile. I think the best course of action is to start from scratch and only cover that has been includes in independent reliable sources. So this would not include your website, those of the schools you attended. Sources like the Staten Island Advance might work. What do you think of that course of action? Star Mississippi 01:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow you are fast; I just wrote to you within the hour! Of course I shouldn't edit anything about me - and I didn't for 15-16 years and never looked for anyone who could. I made some corrections of misinformation and added new material that has importance in legal circles about how my lawsuit changed trademark law- and sent it to you because only you can judge it and only you can check the may additional sources I gave and decide whether to restore the page.Thanks to Wikipedia, Architects (unlike the other professions) could discove the first architectural website and learn who was the first member of their profession in the internet;15,000 New York State could find out who waged a long court battle that removed an onerous burden place on them by a special-interest organization who managed to slip a piece of legislation through one evening in the state capital requiring them to join a particular private organization or suffer consequences and lawyers had a record of my lawsuit that protects everyone's domain name and altered the way federal courts interpret trademark law. I respectfully suggest that all these things are important and worth making a record of. Of course, as you say, I cannot be neutral- naturally, but each of these things are documented and some are part of the early history of the internet. I realize no one cares whether I went to the University of Rome or not and couldn't care less about where I went to high school - but the things I've mentioned have a larger significance- affecting all domain name owners and many thousands of architects. As far as the book and website- I am at the very end of my career and am not even accepting new clients - so while I was very proud that Wikipedia had an article mentioning them, I no longer gain anything beneficial from it (and am not that sure I ever did, really). I hope you choose to restore the actual article; Wikipedia is a more complete work with it than without it. Thanks for your rapid attention to my note - very impressive speed! Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:3551:7BB6:1E3:C4EA (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies for the short answer as I just have a couple of minutes. Thank you for more of this context. While I'm not sure the trademark and lawsuits are enough, I will start the draft so folks who opined at the discussion can add material such as the article about your recognition as a preservationist. It's possible that it will move back to mainspace, but it's possible it won't. Just wanted to make you aware of that up front as well. Since I am limited in my time right now due to work and some upcoming travel, I will put it through WP:AFC (or another editor may if they get to it first, or choose to move it directly). Thanks again for the sourcing information. Star Mississippi 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it. Enjoy your travel! Dave 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:9AA:796A:5353:8C50 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Dave! The draft has begun here Draft:David Carnivale. I also think some of your sourcing accidentally may have made the case for an article on the house as well. Star Mississippi 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Star Mississippi,

Thank you. I confess to being confused about two things: the draft omits- two things that changed many lives; the 6.5 year lawsuit in New York State which noticeably improved the lives of 15,000 N.Y.S. architects and which led to a change in N.Y.S. law, and the 8.5 year federal lawsuit which led to everyone's domain name being far better protected by federal courts - I know it cannot help but sound immodest but those seem to have a certain importance worth noting, no? Besides, the many links I provided often go to official court records, law journals, etc. so the sources you required are there. Two minor suggestions: the number of projects my page mentioned (500) was out of date on my page; over the years that eventually ended up as being 700. Since I've more-or-less retired, that number is unlikely to change. There is a note that a citation is needed for the fact that "The Affordable House" was the second book published cover-to-cover on the internet: the Internet Archive link I provided shows the book in 1998 (the archive first noticed it that year, although it was on the web since 3/15/96); the Staten Island Advance article "Staten Island Advance. Thursday, March 4, 1999. Volume 113, Number 26, 564 Pages 1, D1 & D3 "Home, Home on the Web" by Karen O'Shea" (The Advance is the flagship newspaper for the entire Newhouse Publications organization and is thus a credible source) discusses it, and it was considered a proven fact by the Delaware District Court (twice), the Third Circuit (twice), the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board based on the evidence submitted during all those trials and which are part of the court records, links to the various court sites of which I gave. Yes, I realize those were paper documents which the courts examined, and a scholar would need to look at the court records rather than a magazine article or such, but it is a citation, a source, and is provable to those wanting to research the matter.The Lakeman-Cortelyou house (which I closed my office one year to personally restore after having blocked the owner's intention to raze it- demolition work that had already begun when I stepped in and had the demolition permit cancelled) is not just the second oldest house on the island, but it is but it is accurate to say that the building is actually one of the oldest buildings in the country. Very few 17th century buildings exist in the states; maybe 100-125 at most. It is interesting that that house has seen the sun rise and set during five different centuries; the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and now the 21st. Wikipedia lists only 45 older 17th century buildings in the country (the Lakeman-Cortelyou house is oddly missing from the list of the oldest buildings in America - an oversight). I am not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why the draft article says the draft is not being considered- maybe that's just an intermediary step. Lastly, the very few sentences my page had about biographical information was rather bare bones but seems now to be entirely missing; encyclopedias usually have some brief mention of a subject's background; at least a little bit might make for a fuller, more useful article. Thanks for reconsidering things. Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:38FD:2021:B394:832C (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi David, I responded here where you're welcome to participate. There's nothing wrong with your note h ere, I'd just want more folks to see it. Star Mississippi 20:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I would've thanked you sooner but - perhaps because of the solar flare - my ability to reach this page through two different browsers was disrupted for 24 hours. Sincerely yours, Dave Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:ED85:CDA:132C:338A (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)