User talk:Sdrqaz

My filing cabinets: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7

Barron Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Commonwealth Games boxer articles

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

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

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

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

NPP Award

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

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

Blanking talk page during active block

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

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

User:Belorussian Dino

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

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

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

Jdhfox

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

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

Query regarding to be a true and volunteer Wikipedian

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

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

CSD G4 and Gazipur Cantonment Board High School

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

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

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

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

User:C

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest GorillaWarfare harrasser (the one with the address)

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

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

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

Thank you!

Hello, Sdrqaz,

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

Noble Babu Thomas

I was just about to self-revert the speedy deletion, but you beat me to it, thanks. It looks pretty "substantially identical" in the Wayback'd version: [1]. But rules are rules. Storchy (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Leading Reporters Page Deleted

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

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

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