Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

On 15 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Pinckney, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Pinckney was only the second Black American to be awarded the Navy Cross, the highest decoration for valor in combat after the Medal of Honor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Pinckney. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Pinckney), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,537 views (439.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great work researching, writing, and saving Will Cook (writer) from deletion! Always happy to see your username pop up--a sure mark of quality work. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for both the barnstar and the kind words!--SouthernNights (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I'll call rescuing Tensei Kono a successful defense operation. Cheers! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks! SouthernNights (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @SouthernNights. You kindly speedy deleted a couple of articles for me yesterday, authored by a sock of a blocked user (User:Jhonh3360 as User:Realtrcranfield). There's a third article written by the same user which also needs deleting – but I'm not clear whether the G5 criteria applies or not. I confused matters by initially trying to correct the article, so I've potentially scuppered the “no substantial edits by others” criteria. I didn't know about the AfD/Speedy delete processes & only sought advice after I'd started meddling. :) Please can you take a look for me and advise? DSQ (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It'd help if I told you which article I'm talking about!! James B. Mulkey. Sorry about that! --DSQ (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DSQ : I went ahead and deleted the article. While you did make a few edits, looking at the history showed me that no other editors made substantial edits to the article. So it's still a G5. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good afternoon! I wanted to touch base with you in regards to clarification about a CSD tag removal. Concerning the Astoria bland redirect and the corresponding RfD discussion, you cited that time should be allowed for the RfD discussion to reach consensus. I was wondering if this decision could be clarified? To the best of my knowledge, CSD criteria G6 still applies as the page in question was unambiguously created in error, noted by the creator as a misspelling (before being moved to Wikipedia:MV Lara) and has seemingly nothing to do with the target.

At the RfD, the !votes for this title are currently 5 to delete, zero to keep, not including the nominator which brings it to 6 deletion votes total in the last three days. What I'm wondering about is that, for lack of better words, does this make RfD a "safe-haven" of sorts for speedy deletion candidates? In my view, this redirect still meets the CSD criteria, and in general I'm under the impression that pages listed at RfD may bypass the standard discussion window if its determined that the redirect is speedy-able.

While it may only be the difference of a few days, having more insight about when and how to go about possible CSD-applicable pages at XfD would be appreciated. Thank you much! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Achieving consensus on a deletion discussion is always preferable to speedy delete. If I speedy delete a redirect, someone else can object and/or recreate it. But if the consensus of a RfD discussion is to delete, then it's harder for someone to recreate it and if they do it'll likely be immediately re-deleted. Since the RfD discussion was close to achieving consensus, I thought it better to let that discussion be completed. SouthernNights (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had some time to reflect recently, and I clearly owe you an apology for my poor behavior at Camp Chase Railway. I've come to the realization that I am burned out from Wikipedia and have been taking it out on people who have done nothing wrong. The way I snapped at you was inappropriate and you did nothing to merit it. I'm sorry. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the apology. But please also know you're a really good editor on Wikipedia and a well-needed subject matter expert on trains. Once you deal with the burnout, I hope you'll find a way to both keep editing and enjoy your work here. SouthernNights (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SouthernNights -- I've just noticed that you deleted this article under A7, the minute after I'd declined the A7. It seems to me that there are minor claims in the article (four best film awards for a short film; organising the first silent film festival in Tehran), though perhaps not sufficient to reach the threshold for inclusion. I worry with creative professionals working in a language unfamiliar to most editors here that we are perpetuating bias by deleting their articles without careful examination of notability claims and seeking for sources. I would also point out that the speedy tagger is not known to me and only started editing in September. Perhaps you could take another look? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appears I was evaluating it at the same time you were so I didn't see your edit declining the A7. To err on the side of caution I'll undelete the article. If someone wants to bring it up for AfD, they can do so. Best, SouthernNights (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I thought that was what must have happened. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I find out why the page was really removed? I said that in the past, a page was opened without infrastructure and resources, but now I have created a page by giving 8 visible academic sources. Is the purpose of removing the page because it was opened before? Isn't Wikipedia the world's largest encyclopedia? How will people benefit from this information? Or are Wikipedia administrators trying to protect Skanderbeg? In old discussions, the reality of the war was accepted, but since it was a page without resources and infrastructure, it seemed appropriate to delete it. Keremmaarda (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was previously deleted through an articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Burshek. As such, it will immediately deleted unless substantially different from the original article. If you wish this article to exist, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and get consensus to bring it back. SouthernNights (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 10. —Cryptic 15:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently a page was deleted by you because it was created by a banned user. This page is actually used at many pages.

Can I recreate it and redirect it with other? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 12:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the banned editor recreates the article under another sock, the article will be deleted again and likely salted to prevent recreation. But if an uninvolved editor creates the article and it meets Wikipedia notability and other guidelines, that wouldn't be a problem. SouthernNights (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SouthernNights Okay, thanks for information, I'm recreating this page and redirecting it with other. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @SouthernNights, I don't understand why you deleted the page Al Baraka Bank Egypt. it was previously removed due to some text that was amended, therefore it was republished. The bank is a full entity that resides in Egypt and has international representation.

I really don't understand why it was deleted again on the 25th of September, as it didn't have any of the previous issues.

User:Maha G Aboud: The article was originally deleted per an articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Baraka Bank Egypt because the bank doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Because of that, the article will now be quickly deleted if recreated unless the article is substantially different from the original article. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, however the article has been changed to adapt and match the notability guidelines.

That's why the previous editor did not remove it again.

it removed any unbacked claims, and has recent data and information about the institution.

Please revert the deletion act, if you check the history of the page you will see that the content has changed. Maha G Aboud (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the content changed -- the new article was worse than the one deleted per the AfD discussion earlier this year. So no, the article doesn't match notability guidelines and I won't be undeleting it. SouthernNights (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me know how the previously deleted article which in your words "has become much worse" is any different than the one in the link below?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attijariwafa_Bank Maha G Aboud (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please I would appreciate your feedback :) Maha G Aboud (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already told you the article won't be recreated. There's nothing more to say. It's obvious you are a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and intending to add this article to promote/advertise the bank. But ironically, your actions have ensured that the article will likely never appear on this site. SouthernNights (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you're very rude. Maha G Aboud (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, have you reviewed the article or just deleted because it was deleted before? RevenueDPT✉ 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did and it was substantially the same as what was previously deleted less than two months ago. If you wish this article to exist, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and get consensus to bring it back. SouthernNights (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Can you put it in draft suggesting where the article needs better citations. Thanks RevenueDPT✉ 02:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I won't spend time working on the article. I suggested you go to deletion review as the next step. Unless you can achieve consensus there to bring the article back, it's likely any work on a new draft will be wasting everyone's time. SouthernNights (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dear @SouthernNights, I don't understand why you deleted the Farzad Ghaderi. it was previously removed due to some text that was amended, therefore it was republished. He is one of the best MMA fighters according to the mentioned sources. First, it was deleted due to the problem related to the sources, when I placed the sources from Sherdog website, and then it was deleted quickly, and I took corrective measures to make the sources and details of Mr. Farzad Ghadri accurate, but it was deleted quickly. Thank you for the reason.plz help me, for create article ,thanks 09:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Ahmadech4 (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was deleted due to the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farzad ghaderi that the subject lacks notability. As such, it will immediately deleted unless substantially different from the original article. If you wish this article to exist, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and get consensus to bring it back. SouthernNights (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dear @SouthernNights,You mean to submit a Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion for this article, correct? Ahmadech4 (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, a deletion review. The article went through an articles for deletion discussion and the consensus was to delete. B/c of that you're unlikely to have success with a request for undeletion. SouthernNights (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SouthernNights,

Just a reminder, please remember to delete any talk page when you are deleting an article (or redirect, category, template or draft page for that matter). If you use Twinkle to delete pages, this editing tool will not only delete the article but also delete any Talk page or article redirects that exist. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that's my mistake. I must have forgotten to hit the delete talk page button. My apology. SouthernNights (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can I ask why you deleted this so quickly? Hospital at home is an internally recognized approach to healthcare that is being rolled out across America, the UK, Singapore and other countries. The definition in the UK is also known as virtual wards, but the two terms are used together by the NHS, and national guidance recognises this. I'm fine updating the content but as it's a real, tangible thing - that's supported over 200,000 patients in England, I think it does need a page. Chopschopschops (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You created an article with one-line of information that was copied from a single source and didn't prove the subject's notability. However, you also are saying hospital at home is the same thing as a virtual ward. Wikipedia doesn't allow the same topic to be created under two separate titles. Simply make hospital at home a redirect to virtual ward. I hope this information helps. SouthernNights (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think this edit is appropriate? [1] I undid and was reverted. Looks pov to me, even with refs; needs in-text attribution, I think. DonFB (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that edit is absolutely POV pushing and editorializing so I undid it. Equally as important, this is a featured article so a major change like this would need to first gain consensus to be made. SouthernNights (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, you might want to see this:[2]. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! George Griffith is at WP:FAC, see WP:Featured article candidates/George Griffith/archive1, and I figured this might be of interest to you based on your participation at WP:Articles for deletion/George Griffith. If you are interested in weighing in on the FAC, your input would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for having so much improved the page about Roger Scarlett. I created this page and was fully aware that it was just a stub. Wanted to improve it myself, but then other things were more important. Thanks for your time and effort. Statshist (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating the article in the first place and I was happy to help out. One of the things I most enjoy doing here is helping save notable subjects from having their articles deleted. And the duo behind Roger Scarlett are indeed notable. SouthernNights (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SouthernNights. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.