Any help or queries ask me here. Use tildes (~~~~); software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
Wikipedia is a whole of knowledge in it , We hope for your faithful contributions.You can contact me for any help on here.
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Walia, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't overcategorize pagesSMasonGarrison13:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have checked the categories again and three of them are actually meeting the subject. Category:Ahluwalia and Surnames of South Asian origin too and Toponymic surnames including some others. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even a constructive reply. Anyway, you are pushing your pov by removing a category that is clearly meant for the articles you removed it from. You removed Punjabi surnames category from all the Punjabi surname pages. This reply "Great" and an advice followed by it is like attacking pages created to push your opinion. Very much against the community guidelines. If you cared to check enough rather than doing such attacks, there are tens of articles in the same category with more than 6 categories each. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Please assume good faith. My reply was intended to encourage you to keep working in the area. Calling me encouragement non-constructive and then jumping to the conclusion that my attempts are reducing your overcategorization as an attack is just baffling. SMasonGarrison13:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I assumed good faith as you are a senior editor here and my previous reply was meant for an advice on the topic not bypassing it. I read the guidelines and there is no limit on categories as long as we don't repeat similar ones right?
That's why I replied -
Hi, I have checked the categories again and three of them are actually meeting the subject. Category:Ahluwalia and Surnames of South Asian origin too and Toponymic surnames including some others. meant to seek your advice here on "those" categories but you wrote,
"Great!" (I was asking about your edits and did not write anything for great as a reply with exclamation mark) followed by, "Please keep categorization guidelines in mind when you add categories to pages", tell me which part is encouraging. There is nothing to baffle about here, simply you were proving your point per WP:POINTY. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Great!" is supposed to be encouraging. The 2nd sentence is pointing out that you were applying the policy correctly. Your insults in response to my diffusing overcategorization is baffling. You were overcatergozitiong by adding pages to redudant categories. I was fixing it.SMasonGarrison2600:1700:944:9810:CD21:7539:4636:E0FE (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be simply not what it seemed to be considering your edits. On the other hand, using insults over replying on your edits is totally blowing it out of proportion and is baffling as there is no insults here. I did assume good faith and sought your advice as your a senior editor with clearly more experience. I wish to not engage in this conversation with repetitive out of context replies any further. It might be better than causing further misunderstandings. Thanks! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I strongly encourage you to reflect on your interpretation here. If you want people to assume that you are assuming good faith, don't start by "That is not even a constructive reply." and then immediably follow by "are pushing your pov by removing a category that is clearly meant for the articles you removed it from". Like, if your intent was good faith, I encourage you to rethink your approach. Please just review how categorization works and how diffusion works. It's a really simple ask. SMasonGarrison00:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
I saw you're editing the 2025 india-pak airstrikes page. I was earlier posting through my IP address without loging in and didn't know it was public.I am concerned about my safety. Can it be hidden please. Iamgood22 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Do not panic and continue using your account from now on. Do not show your relation or affiliation with that IP on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
I found this WP:OSFAQ. As per the WP:OSFAQ, enable email in your account and email to
oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org.
According to this, the Q. added below seems to apply in your case and mention it in your discussion with the team at mail. It is totally up to you.
Q: I don't have a Wikipedia account. My IP address was published on Wikipedia when I edited. Can you remove it? A: If you wish to conceal your IP, you should create an account. In some cases, suppression may still be considered, for example, if you are a new editor and did not realize your IP address would be publicly published. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are being mentioned in a discussion regarding your disruptive, poorly sourced and biased edits to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article. Please feel free to participate in the discussion.
At first, I was writing full names but to avoid irrelevant discussion, I shortened them. I had no idea about Bulgaria to be BG (it should have been BU). I will replace that asap. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, understood — thank you for the clarification. I’ll move the discussion to the article’s talk page so others can contribute as well. Appreciate your guidance! Ck17840 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase is still not included in the third-party list. Please refer to the below The Washington Post thoroughly.
I noticed that The Washington Post recent article on Pakistan Airbase Damage also mentions PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase. Please go through the below article thoroughly.
During the conflict, a video showing a jet being targeted was shared by the official X handle of the Pakistani government and praised by Information Minister Attaullah Tarar. Fact-checks by Deutsche Welle later identified it as footage from the video game Arma 3. [ UK Defence Journal, Washington Examiner, DW ]
A video showing a jet being targeted went viral on social media during the conflict. According to the UK Defence Journal and the Washington Examiner, the footage was shared by the official X (Twitter) handle of the Government of Pakistan, with Information Minister Attaullah Tarar praising the military’s “timely and nerve-wracking response.” However, Deutsche Welle identified the video as gameplay from the video game Arma 3.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.
Hi @HilssaMansen19: Why did you close this as Speedy Keep when it wasn't. The nomination was clearly withdrawn as a keep. It was miles from a Speedy Keep. It was opened for a full week. How can it be speedy. Can you change it, "Nomination withdrawn - Keep"? scope_creepTalk18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking all the discussions and closed it per withdrawal with unanimous voting. I might have missed the hour based difference, that counts, yes. I will change it, apologies for any inconvenience. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it as your mention was for it to be kept if it meets time based significance. It was covered by voters. The standard discussion timing was completed by a few hours. Thanks for notifying me. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chandhar airfiled: Happened to pass by this article. Relies on a single source and barely has any sources on the web as far as i have looked up. It also lacks the WP:N in my view. Kindly look into this. Thanks Banshee 007 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I have added a relevant tag for now. Per WP:NAIRPORTS, WP:BASIC is required. I checked it and some basic information is available. Thus, AfD might not be the right choice, you can help by expanding the sources. Notably, it was also attacked in retaliation by Indian armed forces in the war of 1971. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by this close. You have closed the AfD over a day early. It was re-opened for a relist and got only a new redirect !vote. You say There were doubts about notability of quotes from interviews, WP:IV, covers that. But the point is that IV says very clearly that those quotes are primary and cannot be used for notability. And that makes me wonder if you also missed my delete !vote in the discussion. Could you re-open urgently to allow the relist to run for a week? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I did check your vote which was delete and considered snowball clause here. It is being stretched for over 3 weeks now with no major argument which is agreed upon by others. Apart from votes, arguments including quotes the one you pointed at also mentions where and how it can be relevant.
If it is being argued upon, it depends upon the general consensus and perspective.
Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, it contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline with also focusing on reliability of the publisher. This was not even mentioned there. Whereas, arguments about sources being reliable have been added in the discussion.
This was a backlog and previous relisting comment by @Star Mississippi discussed closing this as a keep. They kept it open per a request made to them and wrote that they will check it after being active again. Still, if you believe it requires more time, @Sirfurboy based upon your request I will request a second opinion and open it.
For a second opinion, @Star Mississippi, can you weigh in on the observation that there have been no notable argument which are unopposed or supported in consensus and if you still suggest to open it again, I will do so. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking just in case, @Sirfurboy Do you have any detailed further point which will focus on it being deleted? Can you share it here? If it is the same as ones in discussion, we can avoid reopening it again. Whereas, if the requested users agree to it here, I will do so.
Greetings, you were a part of previous discussion which was also a request to reopen, can you spare a moment and check it again? I have added my notes above and did not find any strong argument or analysis which provides a requirement for it to be deleted or otherwise. Other than that, old newspaper findings which are passing for NGs were added in the last comment before the close. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it is very very definitely not a snowball close. My concern here is that there are very clear policy reasons raised by a number of editors as to why this does not pass GNG. It is those policy objections that are unrefuted, from where I'm seeing this. We have a source review in which I found nothing that clearly meets GNG, and where coverage is localised. We have people agreeing with that source review and people disagreeing with it. Had this been closed as no consensus, I would have shrugged and walked away. I think it is a very clear case of failing notability, but some editors will have different views. So be it. But to call this a keep is to take a view that the strong policy based objections and the careful reading of sources and their discussion are all in error. It is to say I am wasting my time arguing on policy, and this is just a vote (but not even that, because the voting is a tie). Source reviews take hours - longer than the article creation. Am I wasting my time with them? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, every edit towards improvement on Wikipedia is significant. Don't you agree that, in this case, no consensus should have been if basic consensus of keep votes failed to present any argument or sources? About sources, we can't label them as unreliable on our own. That is not a discussion under AfD. Tie? I think we should follow votes with perspective.
About sources reviewing, you do have a point, it takes time.
I will open it again after 8 hours - only if no opinion is added by @Star Mississippi and @Rlendog in the meantime as they might be inactive for now considering time zones. After that, I will leave it for @Star Mississippi to consider.
Keep votes did fail to provide any unrefuted new sources. That's the point. There was no consensus to keep. Again, the only new !vote after the relist was not to keep. Also waiting 8 hours to re-open consumes most of the remaining window on this one. I would appreciate if you just re-open this and let it run to its deadline, rather than ignoring the additional response and early closing it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered about arguments. Since, you seem sure about it with additional response (considering in same opinion per persist), I am opening it. Do remember that votes are not the only highlight for consensus but the participation including sources and discussion is. Just adding this, if it comes to evaluating sources, any one can do that but not denying reliability based on observations/assumptions without relevant discussion. A newspaper old or new is notable. I will check the discussion. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say beyond what is already in the AfD, but I did provide new source since @Sirfurboy🏄 raised his objections from the Las Vegas Sun and someone else provided a source from the Calgary Herald. But that doesn't even matter. Sirfurboy's refutations to the sources that were already provided were from essays, not guidelines or policies. It is fine for him to interpret the guidelines using those essays but it is not mandatory for everyone to agree with those interpretations, and such "refutations" are hardly "strong policy based objections". That is why we have these discussions in the first place. And even Sirfurboy's refutations were refuted, for example by discussion of how much of one of the newspaper articles' was quotes from the subject versus material that was not quotes from the subject. Again, Sirfurboy is welcome to disagree with those assessments but is not free to proclaim that those who disagree are inherently wrong. Again, that is why we have these discussions. And sometimes there are valid arguments on both sides but that doesn't mean there can't be a consensus. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rlendong as we should look at both perspectives and keep track of previous arguments to understand the latest ones. Anyway, you can discuss this further as you suggested in the re-opened discussion itself.
while I don't consider myself Involved per the wiki definition of it, I won't be the one to re-close this as I don't feel it would be appropriate to any who have been a part of the discussion. Just my opinion @HilssaMansen19, but I don't think this is one for you to re close either. By @Rlendog and @Sirfurboy raising their concerns here and at my Talk, it's a contentious decision and best closed by someone with a little more time at AfD. Not policy, and you are welcome to do otherwise StarMississippi01:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, understood. Btw, I am also active in the discussion itself by one comment as I am checking how it is going. Happy editing and enjoy to all! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, both in responding and since my relist @HilssaMansen19 @Sirfurboy. I have been mostly offline and have not had time to delve into this in the depth I hoped. I think your relist was the right call here @HilssaMansen19 and @Sirfurboy's requests to you (and me last week) have solid merit to let this discussion find resolution, whatever that might be. It's a better use of community time than a DRV and a potential new discussion. StarMississippi11:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies my friend, you have been doing great work here to be considered an inspiration for other/new/inexperienced users like me. Being an inspiration for others is not easy either. Don't mind my flattery and this is what I do when I meet an experienced one in the field, teenage stuff.
As for the discussion, yes, you are right. Even I felt that we should give it a day or more for a more proper consensus rather than DRV and having "mixed" discussions there. I am in favour of keep as well per various sources but if there might be a new noteworthy argument, it is worth re-opening.
I will leave the closing this time to you if it is fine?, as I am thinking of adding a comment there. If you might be busy, just ping me, I will not comment and wait to do the closure again. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moriwen, I am apparently more confused as this happened alongside others while closing Fusion Engine. I just cross checked it and the timings. Could there have been some sort of closing error by XFDCloser? HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This was also redirected. @Moriwen, I took a screenshot of XFDcloser as there were 3 talk pages shown and it was apparently slow. Can you guide me on further steps as the pages were deleted? Shall I req an admin or raise s technical req. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to work on an assignment and this happens. I am feeling like sending the following to the XFDcloser, only if it was a user (crying virtually)...
Hello HilssaMansen19, has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This AFD could be considered a close call so was not an ideal AFD discussion for an NAC Closure. Let's see if it is challenged here on at DRV. LizRead!Talk!23:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
Hope you are doing well. You are right, thanks for letting me know about this.
I referred to additions by Cunard as the best argument of both sides apart from nominator's comment on initial sources additions. Just to not make it lengthy, I noted it on talk page. I have seen lengthy closure comments but not sure if it is or is not an issue. If an issue is raised, I will do my best to answer it. For the future, I will firmly note this and avoid participation in such closures.
I have read it and will go thoroughly again. I will be learning more along the way from you, kindly keep a spot open for your guidance. Happy day! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - apologies for talk page stalking, as I still have your page on watch from the above discussion. I did not participate in the Short Break AFD, and I am always reluctant to take anything to DRV, so there is no threat from me to do so. Nevertheless I think you may have erred here. In your close statement you state that Cunard's argument is the only strong one, and above you say theirs is the best. Yet the nomination itself is a strong statement, and the following delete !votes respectively refer to WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. These, in fact, are strong policy arguments that are not refuted by Cunard's sources. IRS SIGCOV sources are useful for showing an article meets GNG, as I'm sure you know. But there is a very important additional consideration in WP:N, which reads:
So branch 2 there specifically says that even if we have the sources mentioning a subject, it is not presumed to merit an article if excluded under WP:NOT. Thus the NOTESSAY and NOTDICTIONARY arguments are very pertinent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I AGF here. As per my closing note and additional note on talk page -
1. Votes should explain per policies relevant
2. I have added that all arguments (votes) were counted.
3. I checked all the guidelines added and ran through the line-to-line discussion, might have not read full long paras line to line but read each of them.
4. I have written that specifically - WP:NOT that the discussion at the end has support for it being encyclopaedic too.
5. If I am cancelling each vote with the other, does that make any sense?
6. We are not having AfDs to just count votes, but initiate a discussion unless there is certainly no notability or it is inappropriate in any of the many ways
7. Again, we should go read not only the upper text of policies but the depth Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), usage and history. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness.
First sections of WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTDICTIONARY clearly mention specifics like above highlighted and also keep votes mentioned encyclopedic which I quoted. All things have been mentioned in policies just like - One delete vote said per nom which is fine but just presumed vague term....could mean any break as additional argument? That was also addressed by new edits after nomination and sources present. Terms are like concepts and not people, buildings or conflicts but all of these are allowed with relevant guidelines. Original argument was WP:PTM. I think that was met right ?
The only bad call as per advice mentioned above is -
Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.
Some further points for you to read and assess to understand the rationale -
"AfD is not a vote. The arguments made during the discussion must be assessed to determine whether they are grounded in policy and whether they are relevant."
Some additional notes to just clear the overview. I also feel to have discussion done in OP and at DRV it just gets mixed. If needed, I can raise it there. Also, we should check if the arguments raised are met well or not in the discussion. After the editing, it was turned into a well written text. Sources do not suggest Essay or Dictionary but a concept. It is also addressed in WP:NOTESSAY and WP:WHATISTOBEDONE #1 point itself others are being focused on per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Points applicable here includes -
The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.
Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes.
Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly have any suggestive opposition specifically to the points above, do share. I think that sums it up. There are similar but various arguments like the above that have been used in hundreds of discussion I have checked. Our Admins while closing do not always generally keep it short as they do point and raise points while closing wherever needed. Whereas, as a non-admin it is our duty to fully explain even if the consensus is clear or not. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going offline to complete some study work and will engage later on. They might be full lengthy points but do read as they give a complete overview of a drop in the ocean of Wp. I will check on later. Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So again, let me say that it is not my intention to take this to DRV. Thus I don't think it needs to get confusing across multiple fora. I'll also say that at no time did I suggest I thought AFD was a vote. I specifically said there were two unrefuted delete !votes. The ! is intentional. In computing that is a symbol that is used to indicate the negation of what follows. A !vote is a "not vote". What is pertinent here is only that you said that only Cunard's argument was strong (which I read as "based in policy and guidance"). In fact any appeal to WP:NOT is also a P&G compliant argument, and, importantly, is not refuted by GNG sources. Because GNG is arm 1 of WP:N, but to merit a page, the page must not be excluded by WP:NOT. If no one else takes issue with it, this point will be moot here. However, as you wish to learn and close more AFDs, recognising arguments based in this second arm of WP:N will be important. Take care, and happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HilssaMansen19,
I can't help but notice that you have a lot of your AFD closures being challenged over a short period of time. This could be a sign that you are not ready to be doing NAC closures with AFDs. I know I have been closing AFDs since 2020 and haven't seen you regularly participating there in discussions over those years. It is very unusual for NACs to have this many closures challenged over the course of a week. The successful ones have one or two AFD challenges over a month, not a week. I think, at the minimum, you should only be handling uncontroversial closures where opinions are unanimous. But my recommendation is for you to stop closing discussions and start participating as a regular editor which would give you more experience evaluating arguments and assessing sources. Please think about it. LizRead!Talk!06:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
Thank you for your message. I took a note of your previous message itself and have been contributing more as a voter. I actually read it in one discussion between another admin and editors as well to engage more.
I was inactive for most of the school years, I took part in a few back in 2019 with some AfDs without votes when I was still new to them without experience. I have been most active since late April in AfDs.
You are right tho, apart from this one I had 2 other as I was very active in AfDs.
An overview of them-
First one I closed - nomination was withdrawn but 3-4 hours late difference, changed it to Keep from SK
Second one - I closed it a day early as no substantial rebutting of keep and a full concurrent discussion followed.
The recent one I tagged you in where engagement of the nominator towards other participants was not productive.
Considering your previous message, I re-opened it, as I felt it might be best left to you or other admins even when it was unanimous but not so civil.
These are just some overview excuses but I have been engaging more in comments and relisting (no engagement or no consenus AfDs), since then. @Liz What I learnt from your messages - Be calm and learn with peace vs. engaging in disputes.
I have explained it. I checked the time again. I already answered prior AfD discussions and mentioned for no active involvement in particulars as guided.
With a start, comes questions. With questions, comes answers. With answers, comes guidance. With guidance comes learning and with learning, comes understanding.
I had a little experience but new to AfD as a concept again. About previous discussions and guidance - Maybe not very active now but have been doing their bid with dedication to WP fo so long, I believe @Star Mississippi, @Rlendog are always ready to help and guide. In guidance particularly, admin @Liz is always busy and a veteran who guides with good faith. I thank them for having guided me and will adhere to their guidance.
I have learnt with every edit and explain wherever needed.
I hope this was not meant to disguise as a concern revolving around prior ones to just to discourage. I AGF and seek an explanation from you, an experienced editor on telling me the reasons why this one should not have been relisted. That's all. Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About others I have explained and I am not doing AfD closing now but focusing on checking discussions and commenting.
My thoughts about AfDs are as I have mentioned in several of them - discussing whether there are sources and helping/volunteering in finding them.
I don't wish for any irrelevant misinformation or discussion from my side.
This one Kindly read this thoroughly and without bias -
Per nominator -
Unable to find any coverage satisfying WP:BIO, although it's possible there's something in Indonesian that I'm missing. Player for a second-tier football club; sources are a database entry, a brief article mentioning a transfer, and an instagram post. — Moriwen
In simple language, sources may exist but the need is to find them
There are only two votes in the discussion which have these opinions -
Delete – Per nom. Svartner
In simple language, per nom
no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me.
about this you know it better as you have mentioned for a further discussion if sources are found
I relisted this as per usual standard time. I don't understand, why did you think that I am wrong to relist this? I explained it clearly but you just assumed no good faith without looking at already explained re-list with mentions of sources and notability? I don't know any explanation per any policy or standards that it was wrong to relist this particular one?
This was neither a multiple-relist case nor did I mention anything against policies, did I? :Please AGF which is not but just a please explain yourself.
You just mentioned, as others have raised above, explain yourself.
You are an experienced editor here. I am not engaging actively now in multiple AfDs and about this, will also seek guidance from other admins. @Star Mississippi I am requesting to you to just check the re-list and if my comment or relist was wrong as suggested above. It would have been relisted by other admins. I added comment to explain it without leaving it blank.
I am trying to understand the concern here. Do you think it should not have been relisted per the above comments? Or without discussing what nominating comment includes or any discussion about sources which you suggested as well to ping you for?
I am not active in relisting either but only 2-3 if there is a lack of discussion or a discussion is suggested following standard time.
Many experienced and WP dedicated editors who are also participants worked and are working hard to find notability, work on article themselves unless the topic is totally based on WP:ADMASQ or not encyclopedic. It is a legacy for Wikipedia which one may choose to follow. We should engage in AGF discussions and let the discussion run it's course properly with full engagement and opinions.
For anyone else reading this - Also, suggested by the nominator that a possibility exists for Indonesian sources, and participant also said, notability not found per them and if it is found per sources, ping them which I also simply requested in the re-list - With this, hoping for Engaging Discussion about sources and notability this was my simple message added;
My prior AfD concerns of which two were about timings of closing and I have answered them and I am not engaging in them anymore. One was a clear keep but participant raised a concern and done per further discussion on delete but they rather changed their vote. It was also raised on another admin's closure which was the same. Next, my first closure, previous one was just a 3 something hours late and thus, changed to keep. I was guided by Liz/others and I told them that I will work in the direction advised. I am rather working on to check notability of articles and work to save them if needed. I don't know what to believe but seems like this concern was just to re-involve or vent around previous discussions per the comment clearly. If this was meant to be totally discouraging from an experienced editor and I will not engage in AFDs for now. If there is no explanation but just venting around previous discussion or any such, I will contribute elsewhere in good faith. Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls17:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not active in relisting either but only 2-3 if there is a lack of discussion or a discussion is suggested following standard time. if those 2-3 are the same, as they were in the discussion @GiantSnowman flagged @HilssaMansen19, there is not necessarily a need to relist. Sometimes that's all the input an AfD is going to get. I'm glad you've decided to participate more and close less as learning is a process especially with time away. I don't think anyone wants to discourage you. StarMississippi15:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HilssaMansen19, sorry to be blunt but I believe you are missing what several other editors above have hinted at, and so I'll state it plainly: can you (voluntarily) stop patrolling AFDs to close them, relist them, or summarize the discussion for others?
I don't doubt your intentions but even when your summaries make sense in hindsight (eg), they are really hard to parse and I doubt that they help either the closer or other participants. Instead, if you wish to participate in this area, do so as a regular commenter at AFDs, ie, simply provide your personal evaluation of the subject's notability and !vote, keep, delete, merge, redirect etc as you see fit. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About that summary one added here, it was unanimous keep but since SP remarks were there, I sought for an admin to check them and close it again as Liz guided me previously. To only participate in unanimous NACs and also, learn more from being active there to contribute in NACs. I redirected the participant who raised them towards active editors and added it again.
I did not add it in bad faith. I added that comment for them (admins tagged including the closing admin) to check but I agree about this. I will rather stop completely editing there @GiantSnowman and randomly participate in any checked. Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls18:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already added that I will be adhering to guidance by Liz upon three genuine and answered concerns. I will not be repeating already discussed things. I will be participating randomly to learn and contribute. Meanwhile, I convey my thanks again to genuine and experienced editors for their guidance, Liz and Star. Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls19:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that your signature now displays "Irien1291S" instead of your username, "HilssaMansen19". This is very confusing for other editors, especially newer ones who might now understand that you alter your signature to display other words.
Could you either change your username to Irien1291S or change your signature to your actual username? Thank you for considering this suggestion. I expect I won't be the only one who was confused. LizRead!Talk!23:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz,
After seeing so many cool ones in AfDs, I was wrong to think that ~HM19 would work for clearing any doubts. I hope it isn't against any policy, right? Sorry for the confusion. Of course, not a worry, I will add both if there is no issue. I am a nobody here, and I thought it wouldn't be noticed or anyone would care as I won't be active like past 2 months. I will just do my bid in PR review and articles wherever needed. Good day to all! Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls01:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Walia, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't overcategorize pages SMasonGarrison 13:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 37.111.159.180 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
