User talk:CSMention269/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CSMention269. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Reading Beans was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The citation failed verification. Best,

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sana Satish and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, CSMention269! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sana Satish. Thanks! Jamiebuba (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sana Satish, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GSS ^💬 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, I thought of creating this title but after completing my version of draft in the sandbox, I saw already another person made it, and page-create is indefinitely protected due to failed GNG versions deleted. I read this previous DRV to delete and disallowed the draft but another DRV allowed the draft but not found. See my draft version in sandbox and if it works with WP:GNG and WP:THREE conditions, how can I work more on this? ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @Dan arndt and @Curbon7 for help. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 18:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm really not the best person to ask – I've wasted far too much of my life on this, and don't want to get involved anymore. All I can say is, you're not allowed to create an article on this Annamalai character, under any title, without express permission by DRV, per WP:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2. You also need to take a good look at WP:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#K._Annamalai_(BJP_politician) and Talk:K._Annamalai#Page_protection.

TL;DNR = if I were you, I wouldn't go there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand your observation on this, this character is famous actually during the pre-2024 Indian general election period which got SIGCOV easier. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi CSMention269. You've effectively done a Speedy Keep here on the grounds that the nom withdrew. This is invalid as there were other delete !votes: "Where the nominator withdraws... If a good-faith editor in good standing recommends delete or redirect, the AfD should not be speedily closed using this ground". Closure should still have been decided through weighing up the !votes (so Keep would be the correct outcome, I think)... however even if you had explicitly done that it would be at least questionable with WP:NACD in mind ("Close calls and controversial decisions* are better left to admins", "Do not close a discussion if: ... you have offered an opinion in the discussion"). I don't see a different outcome likely were this to be taken to WP:DRV, and your "involvement" in the discussion leant towards deletion, but please review WP:NACD, WP:BADNAC, etc before closing further. [*I suspect that at least one participant would be vocally unhappy with the close] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted; thanks for beating me to the explanation. -- asilvering (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, @Hydronium Hydroxide: that's what I took this approach to the talk page of AFD to Liz and nom whether my AFD closing is right or wrong. No one has responded to me yet. I thought no objections I got. Also I had read NACD and later I realise it could be a close call, that's why I tagged them in talk page. Also Speedy keep was done by mistake, as I changed to keep. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

AFD Talk pages get fewer eyeballs on them (I didn't notice that one of your edits was there instead of main page). No response or push back immediately doesn't necessarily mean no objections or problems - perhaps noone who's seen it has enough time or energy or inclination at the time to do anything. I expected the outcome to end up keep despite the issues -- as it did per Liz's closing comment -- so didn't DRV or request you self-revert when I noticed (vaguely WP:NOTBURO, though asilvering's revert was also perfectly reasonable/correct), but decided to flag things with you later to hopefully head off any of your future closes becoming a problem (A DRV is costly on editor time). If you're going to NAC AFDs, it's probably best to stick to only those for which you are absolutely certain that you are acting well within policy - if there's doubt avoid. As your experience/understanding grows, so could your range expand. This doesn't necessarily mean there will never be any pushback -- WP has a lot of policies/guidelines -- but it makes it far less likely. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Hi CSMention269, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi CSMention269. Thank you for your work on Samsung Galaxy F15 5G. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Warm salutations! Thank you for creating the article! May you and your family have a blessed day today!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, man. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry about my declining the speedy. You were right to tag it for someone to review. Thanks for what you do at New Page Patrol. Congrats on your new permissions. BusterD (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's ok @BusterD, I'm just flexing the difference now of how I review draftspaces and non-reviewed new mainspaces. Just there was G5 CSD tagging issue I faced. But now I understand it. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Making a few mistakes is an unappreciated benefit of doing New Page Patrol. You're going to do reviews, and others will eventually come behind you and build the page. All you need to do as a reviewer is guide the page in the right direction: improvement, moving back to draft, prodding or nominating for deletion, or speedyD. Never fuss over feedback; it's necessary for you to calibrate your actions with what you learn over time (and what others are seeing). NPP is a much safer place to make mistakes than on ANI, for example. Thanks again! Sing out if you need help! BusterD (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)