User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sdrqaz, for the period September 2021 to January 2022. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Hi Sdqraz

You tagged a page, B A F Shaheen College Kurmitola for speedy deletion as criteria G4. But this article isn't substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. Because there are now 2 reliable sources. dhaka.gov.bd and baf.mil.bd is absolutely reliable source. Thanks. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

dhaka.gov.bd is the official website of Bangladesh's capital Dhaka and baf.mil.bd is the official website of Bangladesh Air Force. There are surely absolutely reliable source. I'm sure! Thanks ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 18:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Tajwar, the appropriate course of action when a page that you created is deleted is to go to the deleting administrator (in this case Joe Roe) and discuss with them to see if the page can be undeleted so that the sources you added can be reviewed by the other participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B A F Shaheen College Kurmitola. You should not have recreated the article 78 minutes after it was deleted. While the sources you mention are reliable, they're not secondary or independent (the Air Force runs the academy, after all). For an organisation to be notable, it needs to have multiple secondary, independent reliable sources (for example newspapers) cover it in good detail. You can find more information on that at the guideline for organisations. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Sdrqaz for helping me in my talk page! ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 13:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Message was in response to this edit on Tajwar's talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Just to let you know I changed the short description back to "1920 film" as that format is the de facto standard for film article shortdescs. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, No Great Shaker. If that's the case, it's a strange de facto standard to me: short descriptions allow for 40 characters and the format "[year] film" seems like we could be adding a lot more information. A frequent short description format I've seen in movie articles is "[year] [genre] film by [director]" or at least something descriptive, like in the FAs (choosing the most famous examples here) Jaws ("1975 film by Steven Spielberg"); Alien vs. Predator ("2004 science fiction action film"); E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ("1982 film by Steven Spielberg"). If this is the de facto standard, it might be worth formalising in the Manual of Style. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, Sdrqaz. It should really be made formal but I've no doubt it would involve considerable discussion. I have an open mind on it, actually, so if you feel that the full 40 characters should be used, then that's fine by me. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at The Kelly Gang.

uhh i dont understand how to find information with a page that just redirects to roger taylors page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen fan who edited ogre battle article (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Queen fan who edited ogre battle article: If you click on this link and remove the redirect, you can create the page there. I had originally planned on moving the page you created (Outsider roger taylor) to Outsider (Roger Taylor album), but it already existed. Another editor about a week ago began work on it here, but it was changed into a redirect. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the creation of this page.

I dont now how to add the fact that I am Sepehr Haddad of Shahin and Sepehr but am also an author which has written a book. I tried to make a separate page for myself only ( Sepehr Haddad) but it seemed I could not since I am part of Shahin and Sepehr because of my music. If you could be of assistance to show me how to do it as I am a public figure, I would appreciate it. Thank you for all your support and the time you take to make things right. Much appreciated Sepehr — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEPEHRHADDAD (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

SEPEHRHADDAD, thank you for your message and my apologies. I thought that you may have been adding information on a different Sepehr Haddad (something we call article hijacking). I've reverted my edit on that page, sorry. However, since you're one of the subjects of that article, I'd advise you to follow the conflict of interest guideline (I've posted some relevant information on your talk page). If you wish to create a standalone article on yourself (I do not recommend it), a good place to start would be to look at the Articles for Creation process and clicking the blue "click here to start a new article" button. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your excellent explanation and so prompt response. I really appreciate it and also the info you provided. I am very impressed with how quickly you got to this and I know how busy you must be, so thank you kindly. Best regards, Sepehr — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEPEHRHADDAD (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sepehr, when I make a mistake it's my duty to make it right. Thank you for your kind words and have a nice day. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Shahin & Sepehr. Part of the message was titled "Thank you kindly for your excellent explanation and so prompt response"; this heading was removed and merged into the previous message.

I am not sure how Ralph Pelleymounter page is a conflict of interest? I did approve a page about myself of which I hadn't realized I shouldn't and I apologize but I believe both have merit to be listed due to the public nature of both of our collective works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteroberth (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Peter, going off the material at Draft:Peter Oberth, you've worked with Pelleymounter on over twenty projects. As I stated on your talk page, conflicts of interest come about when people have "external relationships" with "family, friends, colleagues". In this case, I think there is quite a clear conflict of interest. Since you believe that "both have merit to be listed", please submit the drafts for review by our reviewers instead of just reverting and moving it back into the mainspace. You can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} to them. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the page move of Peter Oberth to Draft:Peter Oberth and page move of Ralph Pelleymounter (Singer) to Draft:Ralph Pelleymounter (Singer).

Hi Sdrqaz. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill, thank you for taking the time to go through my request and contributions; I will use patroller with care. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work on ENwiki \(^_^\ ) ToffeeQueen (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, ToffeeQueen! Sdrqaz (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz,

I noticed that the article that I created for Neal Ludevig was deleted, however I'm confused as to why. I understand it was deleted earlier, but its been substantial time since then and he's been in the press and public eye quite a bit since then.

In addition to the material that was relevant (him as a producer and curator, which was covered substantially), since the creation and deletion of the last article, he was in a number of other places. The main argument earlier seemed to be that him being a producer and curator of large events wasn't enough (despite their large coverage), but now it seems he's been interviewed all over the place - Nasdaq, numerous podcasts and news stations...doesn't this justify this article being reviewed again?

Let me know the process here to open this up. It definitely feels like it merits a review, especially considering this text seems pretty different from previous articles.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiztorybuph (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Neal Ludevig. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hiztorybuph (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Hiztorybuph. The G4 speedy deletion criterion is generally used to eliminate the need for another week-long discussion when not much has changed since the last one. If I remember correctly (I can't access the deleted article because I'm not an administrator), there was only one new event/source in the recreated article since the last discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Ludevig) and I couldn't find much online either; I didn't feel that made it "not substantially identical to the deleted version" or that it meant "the reason for the deletion no longer applies". I was going to suggest speaking to the deleting administrator or, failing that, to file a report at deletion review, but I see you've done that already. Good luck. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdrqaz. Thanks for getting back, well I was adding more (didn't finish it before seeing it was deleted), but there were a number of new pieces and interviews this individual has done, a lot of which can be found on his website (www.nealludevig.com/media) - an article in Nasdaq (https://thecenter.nasdaq.org/foe-neal-ludevig-moon31/), plus at least 3 new podcast interviews (https://thamarrahjones.com/3-curating-experiences-that-create-systemic-change-with-neal-ludevig-he-him/ & https://ktvz.com/videos/local-videos/2020/10/18/funeral-held-for-south-sister-glacier/ & https://open.spotify.com/show/6K1uftYctBGR3uW11FcYlA & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obUPnvvYn4M - those are just a few). So I was a bit confused there but... I'm basically trying to do exactly what you mentioned but I'm newer to the platform and was hoping to start with an article, but the process of refuting it, I could use some help. Does this help clarify a bit more on this front and some of the new stuff? Alternatively I could recreate the article with all of this, but thought it should be a combination.

Anyway, and thoughts help quite a bit! Hiztorybuph (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't rate your chances at the deletion review, Hiztorybuph. Wikipedia has a bit of a strange relationship with interviews: there's general agreement that while interviews can be good for uncontroversial statements by the subject, they're not so useful when trying to determine notability. Pretty much all of these sources you've given me involve the subject talking about himself at length, with minimal actual reporting on the individual by someone else (independent sourcing). One of the interviews was 17 seconds long and spoke about his opinions on why a glacier "funeral" was important, but didn't say anything about him apart from the fact he attended. I think more in-depth sourcing ("significant coverage" in Wikipedia parlance) is needed. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the G4 deletion of Neal Ludevig; the deletion review can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 5 § Neal Ludevig.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have made some explanations regarding the page u tagged for deletion and I believe the page has met the criteria for notability. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Uncle Bash007. I have reverted myself on that page, as I believe the Variety source should be enough to prevent speedy deletion. Sorry about that: I should have been more careful checking that page. However, I am not personally convinced that the subject is notable, but it should go through the Articles for Deletion process again before being deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the G4 CSD nomination of FilmOne.

There is absolutely no reason to leave such an obvious case to an administrator. Unless you want users indefinitely blocked for copyvio to have advanced privileges? See here if you want precedent that administrator status is not required to decline an obvious case.Polyamorph (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your ping was enough to get my attention, thank you. I never advocated for "users indefinitely blocked for copyvio to have advanced privileges". While Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I would rather that it were administrators making decisions at the permissions noticeboard. Although we as non-administrators have the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn, ultimately the decision on whether to grant a permission comes down to the reviewing administrator. DanCherek had already noted the partial block, and any administrator worth their salt would have looked at their block log before granting a permission. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unnecessary bureaucracy to remove my close of a blocked user's request, resulting in an administrator immediately reclosing. Commonsense should prevail in these cases. In general if an admin action is required then an admin should close such requests. But in this case no admin action was required. Only very recently an admin explicitly suggested I close a very similar clear cut case. Polyamorph (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we've reached the point where we need to agree to disagree. I am wary of a slippery slope, where some non-administrators effectively act as gatekeepers for some permissions that do not require gatekeeping (ie "pure" PERM requests, unlike discussions at the edit filter noticeboard and bureaucrats' noticeboard). There is already one permission on that noticeboard that receives scrutiny from a non-administrator that is out of proportion to its stature. I agree with Giraffer, who said: "If you aren't in a position to grant the request you aren't in a position to decline it." You disagree, and that's fine. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in to note that I didn't have any issue with Polyamorph's original declaration of not done, but also felt that reinstating it, as opposed to just signing off on it myself, would have created unnecessary drama for what is really a routine bureaucratic task. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective; I appreciate it. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, which caused this discussion – Special:Permalink/1055049971 § User:2006nishan178713.

Hello, is subvariety used to classify plants geographically like variety? if so or not, please show me a well-explained example! thank you!

BloxyColaSweet (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't edit in the area of plants and don't really know. However, the editors who edit in this area have made responses here and here that are probably correct. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdrqaz,

I saw your comment at پارسا_آملی's SPI case. CSD G5 is for block evasion and, for me and other administrators, we need to see that there is a real connection between an editor suspected of sockpuppetry and the sockmaster and that the alleged sockpuppet's account was created after the sockmaster was blocked. We have some editors who tag an editor's page creations as soon as they are reported at SPI and that is not acceptable. Suspicion is not confirmation. We also have some editors who tag any page that the alleged sockpuppet created, regardless of other editors' contributions to the article. There is a lot of misunderstanding about CSD G5 and some editors, to me, act with unusual eagerness to delete an alleged sockpuppet's page creations as soon as there are suspicions about them. You'll find long discussions about CSD G5 on my talk page as we try to sort out when it is appropriate and when it isn't (and discussion involved a checkuser).

I don't think there is a need to rush and pages should be evaluated to see if the tagging and deletion are appropriate. Page deletion is a serious act to take against an editor and I need to see proof that it is justified before deleting articles an editor created. We used to have admins who would just delete any page with a CSD tag on it without looking it over but they aren't admins any more and I think you'll find other admins who are just as cautious as I am.

But if you disagree with me, you're right, this issue might warrant a discussion at WP:CSD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz, sorry for the late reply. I'm aware of the long-standing debate over G5, with some of our longest-serving administrators being ambivalent or opposing it (User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Feb § About banned users and the banning policy is an interesting read, even if it was over nine years ago, before I began editing). I tagged those pages before they were blocked on the English Wikipedia mainly because, as I noted in my filing, they were already blocked on the Farsi Wikipedia (see Special:CentralAuth/Volleysp470) as a CheckUser action – fa:الگو:قطع دسترسی بازرسی کاربر is their equivalent of our {{CheckUser block}}. Of course, while other projects are not strictly analogous to ours, I thought a CheckUser block would be more than enough evidence that there was a link between the sockmaster and the sockpuppet ({{db-banned}} does have a link to the SPI, so I thought the reviewing administrator would have a look).

I understand, however, from reading the G5-related discussions on your talk page, that you're wary of deleting G5s when the sockpuppet isn't blocked yet, which is fair enough. I agree there's no rush with most CSDs; I recently had a disagreement with another editor over the speed and accuracy of one of their taggings. As a self-appointed CSD regular, I too am wary of unnecessary CSD deletions: I would argue that there are still some administrators that practise an understanding of the policy that is out of sync with the actual text of the criteria, and I have tried to remove CSD tags where I believe that they are inappropriate. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی.

Hi there! There was a lot of information in your response to my submission for Mount Washington Valley SPIRIT, and I don't understand it all. I was hoping you could simplify everything for me.

I created the page as the team has been around for 13 years and has worked alongside the ghost hunters and ghost hunters international television shows. It has continually gained popularity over the years. We are research field leaders and share our experience and knowledge though our blog and podcast at no cost to anyone. We don't even have a patreon page.

The group has no finances and any expenses are covered by me out of pocket. I don't even accept donations. There isn't a financial conflict of interest involved.

There isn't anyone more qualified to write an article about the group than me.

I have several learning disabilities so going through a bunch of links for information isn't feasible for me so I was hoping that you could simplify things.

I spent a dozen hours putting together that article as my learning disabilities make it difficult for me to read.

Could you please simplify what i need to do to get it published. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricExtreme47 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Eric. I'll be happy to simplify what I've written on your talk page. The purpose of my message was to let you know about our conflict of interest guideline and that the article you had written was moved into draft. While a lot of what you're saying about the group is admirable, it doesn't seem notable from what I can see (organisations need to be notable to be eligible for a Wikipedia article). That's because there doesn't seem to have been any independent sources covering the subject. All of the sources in the page are from the group's website, and I can only find mentions of the group from either its website or podcast episodes online. That's unfortunately not enough, as podcasts aren't considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this message at EricExtreme47's talk page.

Submitted the draft for review. Thank You Lynne Thornton (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Lynne. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following the page move of Josef Yohannes to Draft:Josef Yohannes.

remove deletion tag please Deependra Singh (Actor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorbrother (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Editorbrother, but I won't do that. I previously removed one of the deletion tags (a "no context" one) because it was clearly against policy. However, this one (a "repost" tag) is not clearly against policy, though I don't know whether it's a correct tag. A page under a similar name, Deependra Singh, was deleted after a discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deependra Singh). As I cannot read that deleted page, I don't know whether it is "sufficiently identical". You'll have to wait for an administrator to decide whether it's correct. If it is, talk to them on their talk page and if they don't want to restore it, you can ask for others to weigh in at deletion review. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, they have the same birth date. Last year, the 17 year old called himself an entrepreneur and as an 18 year old, he's now an actor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A coincidence, I'm sure! Nothing promotional's ever come out of "entrepeneurs" ... Sdrqaz (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Deependra Singh (Actor) was deleted under G4 and Editorbrother subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet.

Hello, Sorry to disturb you. But i couldn't understand the reason for moving the page to the draft. Also i had a badge saying it needs notability. i couldn't understand about it. what should i do to show the notability. kindly guide me step by step pls.

RajendranMCV (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

RajendranMCV, I moved Spick Media Network to Draft:Spick Media Network because I'm quite sure you have a conflict of interest with MCV Network. Given that the page states "Spick Media's opinion polls were published by the MCV Network", I think it follows that you have a conflict of interest with Spick as well. Notability is something that all Wikipedia articles need. You can show that by adding references from independent reliable sources that talk about the subject in detail. Independent sources cannot be the subject talking about itself or paid advertising pieces either. Reliable sources are generally ones that check that what they're publishing is correct before publishing it. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I work for a private company. I hope the handle i use makes you to think so.. but sorry, i don't have any COI on both Spick & MCV. I'm not even a part of their team. I'm just following the election datas for the states of Tamilnadu and Kerala. Thought of creating some pages based on the informations i have about them & so using this handle to create it. RajendranMCV (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't work at MCV Network, RajendranMCV? Or know anyone who works for them? I'm afraid I find that hard to believe. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes i'm not a part of any of their agency and i don't know anyone from their team. I work for a tamil news channel as sub-editor. I'm still creating some more pages about many other poll agencies. RajendranMCV (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Relevant information can be found at Draft:MCV Network.

Hi Sdrqaz,

I really appreciate you reviewing my (very first new from scratch) Wikipedia page Draft:Tom_Neenan_(writer_/_performer) on 26 November!

I've now added more detail, made an effort to address your concerns (the need to cite independent, reliable sources, etc.), and submitted for review. Understand anyone could pick it up now, but letting you know in case you would like to review it for continuity.

Thanks again and best wishes,
David (Easleydp) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easleydp (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, David, and for putting the effort into improving the page. I appreciate the gesture coming to me, but your draft has now been reviewed by someone who's far more experienced than I am, and I don't see any reason to question their judgement. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following the page move of Tom Neenan (writer / performer) to Draft:Tom Neenan (writer / performer).

Hi! ))

Олег Черкасский (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Олег. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How are you? Sdrqaz Олег Черкасский (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine; I hope you're well. Is there something you'd like to ask about Wikipedia? Sdrqaz (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My English is not very good. But I'm trying to write articles, it's interesting to me. I have a lot of mistakes in the article about Ksenia Svarovski? I do not understand why they want to delete this article.Олег Черкасский (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Олег, I think they want to delete the article because it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, more specifically because of a lack of significant coverage. "Significant coverage" means that the sources need to be about Ksenia herself, not just things that she's said or written. These sources also need to be in good detail: they cannot just mention her. I think another concern others have brought up is that the sources seem promotional, which mean they aren't independent sources. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, dear! Олег Черкасский (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksenia Svarovski.

Hello Sdrqaz. I'd appreciate the opportunity to revise the content of Vestwell page with significantly pared down information as well as citing only third-party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcomms (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Epcomms, as I'm not an administrator I cannot restore Draft:Vestwell for you. Given that it was deleted by Ks0stm, you can choose to talk to him on his talk page to see if he wants to restore it for you. Alternatively, you can just create another page on Vestwell, but you need to be careful to not make it promotional, or it will be deleted again. All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following the page move of Vestwell to Draft:Vestwell, which was subsequently deleted and recreated.

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		For reviewing more than 500 articles during the backlog drive.

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For re-reviewing at least 25 articles during the backlog drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 524 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021.

Do you have an actual source that Shadi Skaf has made 3 international appearances? All of the sources in the article suggest he's made none, and if he hasn't actually made a full international appearance, he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Joseph, I don't believe I stated that he had made three international appearances. I had removed the PROD and moved it to draftspace for effectively the same reasons you've stated at AfD – he does not yet meet the football guideline but will probably do so in the future, as I notified the creator. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My mistake- I've asked the wrong person. Should be asking the article creator (not you, who moved it to draftspace). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadi Skaf and the prior page move to draftspace.

Hello Sdrqaz! Thank you for your comments on my research. I have moved my information to the page you linked and removed one of the sources I used in my original post since I found that it was very difficult to open. Let me know if you notice anything that needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammySamy (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

SammySamy, it looks good, and thank you for moving it over. I've made some changes to the page, including removing the long list of positions – listing the most important positions should be fine, but the Wikipedia article should not act as a curriculum vitae of sorts. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding my message at SammySamy's talk page.

Hi, I hope this message will find you in high spirits. Thanks for knowing me on my promotional editing on a page named Chaman, but most of that information was not promotional kindly restore that information and editing which you deleted with other promotional stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inamullahtopper (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Inamullahtopper: I hope you are well too. Most of the information I removed from Chaman was because it was unsourced or non-neutral or both (for example "the peopled are left to deprive from hunger ... In spite of this in order to improve the living of the people, the government and FC officials grabbed the only source of income from the people by imposing sanctions on imports from Afghanistan.") If you can find reliable sources that support those statements, please add them back in. However, Wikipedia is not your personal website. Your "profile image" does not belong here. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Chaman.

(Sdrqaz took some time to decide whether to put the reply in the box or outside – such is the life of this editor ...) Thank you, Justiyaya! I hope you and your loved ones are doing well, and are able to find some respite in the holiday season. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome :D Justiyaya 04:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I see you make good edits on Wikipedia. So I would like you to correct some problems in my article I made. Cause I want to know where I went wrong and improve on it. Tylerbrizyy (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Tyler, Wikipedia is not the place for promotion. All of the sources on the page you created were either from social media websites (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc) or from his own website. Moreover, the subject did not have a credible claim of significance. The awards he achieved, like "Getting verified on Spotify as an official artist" and "passing over 85,000 total video views on Instagram" are simply not enough for Wikipedia, which needs its subjects to be notable – that means having multiple reliable, independent sources writing about them at good detail. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the A7 speedy deletion nomination of Tylerbrizyy, which was deleted as such.

Hello, Sdrqaz,

I think this deletion request might need more explanation as it has been sitting for more than 8 hours without an admin taking action. It's not clear how it is vandalism. You might consider nominating it at WP:RFD where you can provide an explanation on why this page should be deleted. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I assumed that the delay was due to the time of the year; I've had some nominations stay in the queue for longer. To provide context on my tag, according to Wiktionary, 大 means "big" and the last two characters are a Cantonese vulgar term. Going to RfD may be unnecessary, given that the redirect met the criteria for speedy deletion. Perhaps using {{db-reason}} and linking to those Wiktionary pages would have been more helpful for reviewing administrators in the future instead of my unexplained tag under G3 and R3. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the G3 and R3 speedy deletion nominations of this page, which was deleted as such.

I apologise if my comment in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#British politician sex offended you or you otherwise felt inappropriate. That was not my intention. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by your comment, Thryduulf. I just have a policy of not commenting on my personal life beyond what is on my userpage, so I needed to make clear that I was neither confirming nor denying anything substantive. Other editors (like you) are free to write as they wish. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this message and its reply at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28 § British politician sex.

• Have you ever considered it? I'm one of the administrators who regularly watches UAA, and whenever I see a report with your signature I know it's an open and shut case; I haven't ever found cause to decline you. Goodness knows we need more administrators, and UAA can get plenty backlogged. I'd be happy to do a nomination, I've done a few and my last one went about as well as could be expected (I've also done a more contentious one, which worked out in the end, so I've seen both sides of it). I know RfA is considered an unholy nightmare, but people thought that of RfA when I went for it and mine went off without a hitch. No pressure, I know not everyone wants to deal with it, but if you're up for it I'm happy to help kickstart it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  @The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm honoured that you'd suggest it and appreciate your kind words. I've given it some thought, but am reluctant, mainly due to how many fronts from which opposition can come. I think it's only fair that I be upfront about them: lack of activity at AfD (an aspect of the project I tried to take interest in and failed), a shameful incident from July that is painful to read back (User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 2 § working with US Census data), a discussion from September where I didn't disengage from "defending" a DYK I nominated (Special:Permalink/1046296710 § Current DYK), and two CSDs from November where I wasn't careful enough (Special:Diff/1054250393 and Kalaniot Books). That's the figurative dirt on me, and if voters were to oppose me for those reasons, I'd understand (though maybe not the AfD one). I'd also understand if reading through those links, you don't want your name associated with my prospective RfA. Regardless of your decision, I'd like to get shadow docket through to GA first: I'm waiting for one of your colleagues to get back to me before I'm comfortable nominating it. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  No one has a perfect record or anything, I certainly had my own (relatively recent, at the time of my RfA) misfires and less-than-ideal moments. If anything, I find it more off-putting to see people who try too hard to be The Perfect Candidate^TM, because being an admin inherently involves making some decisions and taking some actions; if you aren't making a mistake every so often, you're not getting enough done. That said, I totally get your wanting to finish your GA nomination, so good luck with that. If it helps, at the time of my RfA this was the only article I'd ever created (still true today), and the articles I list at my RfA were the only significant content contributions I'd ever made (later on I got around to this and this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's reassuring, Blade, thank you. The case of Genie is a fascinating one from a scientific point of view, though simultaneously tragic. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, the fact you are willing and able to look back and assess any issues you've had is much more important than that you've had some. Deal with any big ones up front in your answers to the three standard questions, be ready to address anything else so you don't panic when someone asks about it or opposes for it. valereee (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the advice (and the reassurance), Valereee . Like I said to Hammersoft, I suspect that I would have quite a lot to say for Q3 if an RfA were to occur, within reason. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, you don't want to think about my RfA. But they aren't all that bloody, some candidates, especially recently, seem to sail through. It did help me having great nominators like The Blade of the Northern Lights...by Day #4 they helped decide not to throw in the towel and it all worked out at the end. It can be a long 7 days so pick a good time to run your RfA when your schedule isn't stressful. You look like you have some great supporters right here! They are invaluable should the voting winds change.
  My only advice is to mention that there is no perfect RfA candidate, every one has their own strengths and weaknesses. And you have no idea what the grounds will be that someone will oppose you (some of the reasons are completely ridiculous or trivial) so don't worry about everyone liking you. It's all about having the majority of voters trust that you will make good decisions and that you can handle conflict in a civil manner. Possibly the most important question you are asked is not some technical question or how you voted in AfDs but offering an example or two of how you have successfully handled disputes...conflict is inevitable as an admin and voters need to see that you can handle it calmly when it happens. Good luck and Happy New Years! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Liz, for your important perspective and advice as someone who's been through those nail-biters. I opined in WP:RFA2021 that standards seem to have lowered slightly in the years since your RfA, though others have said that it's because only the "perfect" candidates put themselves forward. I'm certainly not one of them. Thank you for the reassurance and happy new year! Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

• As above! You might get some pushback in regards to content, but it definitely wouldn't hurt to do a WP:RFAPOLL at the very least! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the support, TNT. Much to think about, and thank you for activating the Bat-Signal for additional input. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Uhhhh, I literally just came here to post that you should RfA after you pinged us for oversight in -revdel on IRC. I'd gladly write a nom. Not a huge fan of the RfA poll (which, imo, can only hurt candidates and doesn't actually provide that valuable input... sorry TNT), but if you really want to go that route to get feedback from others, it is certainly open to you. My one point of feedback would be that getting an article to GA might be good, but if you put substantial work into those DYKs, it might be enough to overcome it. If The Blade of the Northern Lights, TNT, or anyone else would prefer to nom, I'll gladly step aside, but thought I'd extend the offer. . TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  (Sdrqaz is surprised that three Oversighters independently^[?] made the trek to the backwater that is this talk page to encourage an RfA run ...) On a serious note, Tony, I'm honoured that you'd offer a nomination. It's a little overwhelming that people I respect think I would do well. As for the comment on GAs, shadow docket was my first "real" project, to the point that I delayed writing my other DYKs so it could be the first one. It doesn't feel right to go into RfA with "unfinished business", so to speak (I've accepted that an FA is not possible in the next few years for that subject). If the nomination fails, I'll reconsider my position, but I'd rather wait until that's done. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  On my end it was actually independent. If I'm being the nom, I don't think I'd want to review the GA in case someone says I passed it for the sake of the RfA, but maybe someone like Ritchie333 could take a look at it? The problem with GAs is the process is so backlogged now. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, good. There is an ongoing backlog drive and of course the WikiCup, so hopefully a reviewer will take it up soon. I agree that the perception of partiality is reason enough not to take the review. (Also acknowledging your email on behalf of the Oversight team, thanks). Sdrqaz (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, John. Brevity is king. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sdrqaz, I've read all the above in this section. I haven't reviewed your edits. I only got here because of the comment (discussed below) that you made at WP:UAA. I can't comment on your preparedness for RfA. But, to give some perspective; I was first approached about a run at RfA in 2017. I dragged my feet, feeling I wasn't ready. Perhaps I wasn't. It wasn't until almost four years later that I finally ran. I'm not suggesting you wait four years :) Rather, you might be more ready than you think. My RfA sailed through without any opposition. Honestly, I was shocked. I think a good amount of introspection, which you've demonstrated above, is healthy. You shouldn't ever do something with the intent of making your RfA more likely to pass. But, spending some time to think about those events, and maybe writing something about them in more depth might help. I did something like this at User:Hammersoft/log#Mistakes,_failures_and_shortcomings. I wouldn't be overly eager to run, and I know you're not being so, but neither would I be overly reluctant either. I don't think a WP:RFAPOLL would be useful at this point. You've received the opinions of others above. If you want, I'll conduct a review of your edits and see where I think improvement (if any) needs to happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Hammersoft. Much to think about. I think your candidacy was a unique one due to your reputation as one of the "thinkers" in the community – there would have been very low tolerance of similar philosophical questions in other RfAs. A question in the same vein was asked in one of the RfAs last year, which prompted some controversy. Looking through the standard three questions at RfA, although the first one has been altered, I suspect that my answer to Q3 will be the longest by some margin. I've read the log before, which is an admirable effort to maintain. I've also been reflecting on the census incident (as mentioned to Blade in my initial reply) of late. If I were them, confronted with antivandalism templates on my talk page after trying to contribute to a subject I care passionately about, scolding me with profanities or retiring in disgust would be entirely understandable reactions. That event has stayed on my mind in the months since. I don't have any plans to go to ORCP – I think I've had a mini one from administrators who don't have reason to sugarcoat their words due to good prior interactions. If you have the time, I'd like to take you up on your offer of a review. I've mentioned most of the stumbling blocks I'm aware of above. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know much of a thinker I am :) But, perhaps I've garnered a reputation for not being inline with hierarchical structure norms on the project. I think that motivated a number of questions at my RfA. If you run, carefully consider how you would respond to Q3; shorter is better. A write up that you could link to might help for the people who truly want to read more. For the rest, a shorter answer to Q3 that summarizes what you've learned and how you've applied those lessons would likely do. If you don't feel you've had time to digest and apply the lessons, then don't run; you're not ready. On the flip side of that; nobody is ever 100% ready. I agree; I think you've had an ORCP review of sorts already via this thread. I will review your edits, but it will take some time; perhaps a few days. Since I'll be doing various edits in the meantime, don't take it to mean that I'm not doing the review. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'll try to be thorough. I also will not mince words; better to be blunt here than to have a bad RfA. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Hammersoft: With the limitations of text-based communication, I've found myself erring on the side of length over brevity in an effort not to lose any nuance (while opening myself up to being called a "windbag"). I'm usually not one for userspace essays, but I'll give doing a write-up a shot. Thanks for the effort. I'll be less active in the next fortnight or so due to real-life commitments, but will endeavour to respond to your comments promptly. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's a flip side to being more verbose to head off losing nuance; you can inadvertently introduce more opportunities for something to be misconstrued. There's an axiom about that. I don't remember it well, but it's something like "The less you write, the more you convey". Sometimes going over something with an eye to reducing verbiage can really help to hone the message into something that bears less chance of being misconstrued. On being less active; if you do decide to run for RfA, it would be a good idea to block out a week when you know you will be around frequently. Being able to answer questions promptly helps. I essentially stopped editing during my run, except for the RfA. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, that's good advice. I've also read back on the good captain's reflections on the matter of timing, though I wouldn't say I agree with everything said there. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I know I'm slightly late to this party, but given the section exists it seems fair to say that I've been thinking of suggesting you run for adminship for a while. I've been repeatedly impressed by your work across multiple areas of the project, particularly including your interaction with newer editors. If you do decide to request the tools, then please feel free to give me a ping as I strongly suspect I would support. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm honoured, Thryduulf, I really am, and thankful. It wasn't too long ago when I was unaware of the policies and norms that governed the project and when I finally stumbled on a projectspace discussion, I was baffled by all the insider terms and abbreviations. Wikipedia is an intimidating place for new editors, or in my case, someone who'd been editing for years but never had cause to venture into the backend. As for pinging, while policy is on our side, the perception that it is canvassing makes me hesitate. Perhaps you'd like to watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdrqaz for if it ever gets created? Hope you and your loved ones are doing well, Sdrqaz (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I would stay well away from any chance of a notification being done that might be interpreted as canvassing. Sorry I'm delayed in reviewing you. I am working on it, but it's been a bit slowed due to my being sick (no, not covid thankfully). --Hammersoft (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  (A lot of dirt to sift through, huh ...) There's absolutely no rush, Hammersoft. Sorry to hear that you aren't doing well and hope you feel better soon. Rest is more important than Wikipedia. Well wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  [1] I'm working on it :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Couldn't resist, sorry :) Sdrqaz (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Nag, nag, nag :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  A shocking accusation :D Sdrqaz (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  "After further review, I've decided this candidate is impatient, and can't wait a measly 19 days for feedback." ;) Seriously, as I mentioned I was sick, and now real life has partially gotten in the way. I've made some progress though. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Don't worry about it, Hammersoft – when faced with putting real life or Wikipedia first, I think we all know which one we'd all choose. Good things come to those who wait. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• What's this all about? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  I had requested at UAA that an alternate account, Sdrgaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), be blocked because it was meant to be a non-editing account. Okra misread the request and blocked my primary account (with the "Q"), modified the block settings, but realised his mistake and unblocked me soon after. My block log therefore has three entries. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: Part of the message was titled "There is a mop reserved in your name" and another part was titled "Review"; these headings were removed and merged into the previous message.

Thank you for removing that entry from the NPP TP, at the time of the entry, the idea was for more eyes looking at the AFD, in hindsight, I clearly see how that came off as something other than what was intended. I was going to remove the entry when I discovered you beat me to it. Thank you for that action. It is very much appreciated. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, Celestina. Thank you for your message and reflection. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding the removal of this message at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. See this message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquorose as well.

I do not see a reason for the request deletion for the Jack Murphy page I created. The content is sourced and the content is of better quality than many wikipedia pages currently up. Additionally, the content that the page is about is about a public figure that has received a lot of notoriety, and everything is sourced. I looked at the other page that has a request deletion for it as well, and I fail to see how the page I created is viewed in the same regard as that page. This is insulting. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valdemarpeterson: Perhaps I'm overreacting, but when there is a chance that real people will be affected by our actions here on Wikipedia, I would much rather we were safe than sorry. Jack Murphy (author) is currently sourced to two sources: one from The American Conservative and another from a website called UnHerd. The community has in the past determined (scroll down to the relevant section) that The American Conservative has dubious factual accuracy. UnHerd states that it aims to "push back against the herd mentality with new and bold thinking, and to provide a platform for otherwise unheard ideas, people and places", which does not fill me with faith in its reporting. When the material in a page is so negative, exceptional sources are needed and I'm simply not seeing them at the moment. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Jack Murphy is a very relevant figure recently as the alt-right shooter of Denver Colorado, who shot up a tattoo parlor, was a member of Jack Murphy's Liminal Order as well as a close associate who heavily followed Murphy. I have also cited Vice news. This is why I believe his page should stay up. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Vice News is better, but not a great deal better. Associating a mass shooting with a living person on the periphery must be done extremely carefully, if it is to be done at all. Such claims would require ironclad sourcing and to be honest, I don't think such material has a place on Wikipedia bar in exceptional circumstances. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Requested BLPDELETE and the deletion request for Jack Murphy (author), which was deleted under A7.

Hi! I saw this comment of yours at WP:UAA. There was in fact an attempt to add a link as HelenDegenerate suggested. It was in the edit filter log: see this and this. I've blocked the account for this reason. I sometimes fail to think about the edit filter log too. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, of course. I saw Helen's report saying they "added link to a website with the same name" and thought it was an actual edit, not a filter log entry. I dove into their contributions and saw an edit adding a differently-named website, so assumed that a mistake had been made somewhere along the way – it turned out that the mistake had been made by me. Another reminder for me not to make assumptions. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you pinged me at UAA about Olastech, a user I reported. To answer your question, the edit that I reported them for was one that only showed up in the filter log; it was flagged by filter 149 and didn't publish. Helen(💬📖) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Helen; it was my mistake (see my response to Hammersoft above). Keep up the good work. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this question at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Part of the message was titled "Re: UAA"; this heading was removed and merged into the previous conversation.

I left the talk page message on BBC Studio Productions, rather than make the changes myself, so the new editor could learn (since the problems weren't urgent). Thanks for fixing the apostrophe issue, I hope they see what was done so they'll know for next time. Schazjmd (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Oh, I see. I thought that you might have had a topic ban on moving pages or something (I know of someone who has to make their requests at RMTR), so carried out the changes since they were relatively simple. Sorry for taking away the learning opportunity; like you said, hopefully they see what was done. As an aside, BBC Studios Productions should probably be merged to BBC Studios. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this message at Talk:BBC Studios Productions and this subsequent move and edit.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shadow docket you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Shadow docket you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shadow docket for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Shadow docket you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shadow docket for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on a great article, Sdrqaz! DanCherek (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't you mean a Good Article? *Cue eyeroll at Sdrqaz's terrible joke ...* Thanks, Dan! I noticed you have something far more exciting coming up. Although it's a shame it didn't get the desired date-slot, it wasn't that surprising given the scale of the other article. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks The date itself didn't matter to me, but we'll see if I can manage to do something I've wanted to do for a while... DanCherek (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly a hard one. Looking through the list, I think I've only accomplished one, and it wasn't even medium-difficulty. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed: impressive work! It's always nice to see important articles like this one getting the attention they deserve. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Extraordinary Writ. Coverage of the topic has certainly increased compared to when I started it way back in February. I'm hoping to see your eponymous article at GAN one day ... Sdrqaz (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Talk:Shadow docket/GA1. Two parts of the message were both titled "Your GA nomination of Shadow docket"; these headings were removed and merged into the previous conversation.

Hi Sdrqaz. I am turning to you because you were helpful in the past with an edit request for Jonathan D. Gray. I would like to continue to improve the page, and I am asking if you can take a look at my most recent edit request here, and if you agree the requested edits improve the page, to please implement. Thanks so much. ThomasClements Blackstone (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, maybe I need more coffee . I was quite surprised to see those pages come up on my watchlist and it still took a few minutes to realize why you moved them. Again, thank you! Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us, FlightTime . I believe such titles are disallowed by the title blacklist, but we have tboverride ... Sdrqaz (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this page move and this subsequent edit.

---

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sdrqaz, for the period September 2021 to January 2022. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7