User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 37

The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

How many edits do you make in, say, a month? --Stargizzle (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

However many you want, there is no limit! MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of communist states on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 14:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Te Waihorotiu railway station on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I joined because the owner of my company Union Home Mortgage, Bill Cosgrove, which is a national mortgage company with about 150 branches recently was one of the 3 people to buy the Tampa Bay Rays and is the second largest controlling owner in the team. We’d like to set up a wiki page for him. We have it written and citations ready to go. (The other majority owner already has a page) do you know my next steps? --Sarakornokovich (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hammersmith on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Pbsouthwood. You appear to have a connection with textbooks that you've been using as references for nineteen diving-related articles. The textbooks were added by you to those diving articles beginning approximately nine years ago, and continue to be inserted by you, up to and including the present month. The articles and their insertion diffs in chronological order:

If you have a connection to these textbooks, then your dissemination of them across nineteen different articles seems promotional in nature. Additionally, the use of textbooks by author Michael Beresford—in light of their possible connection to you as co-author of one of these textbooks—is also problematic, in that your use of that individual's publications as a source in several other diving-related articles (not listed here) might also seem promotional in nature.

The less controversial way of applying these references to those articles would have been to use {{COI edit request}}, but that wasn't done in any of the insertions above. Another prudent approach would have been to disclose the addition of these textbooks upon any of those article's talk pages. Although discussions in which you participated regarding those article's various issues did occasionally occur on the talk pages (including discussions on the lack of citations in some of them), a full disclosure about the insertions of these possibly related textbooks was never made by you (and where many of your insertions of the problematic references were made after those discussions had largely ended).

My question to you is thus: If your intention is to continue to improve those articles with the expertise that you undoubtedly bring from your specialized knowledge of this subject matter, then what wisdom is there, in personally placing into articles, publications for which you may have a connection to? Making these potentially controversial edits runs the risk of obfuscating the many positive contributions you've already made to said articles. They deserve your continued attention towards improving them; a cloud of COI editing cast upon them can only detract from that improvement. I urge you to reconsider using these textbooks in those articles, or if they must be used, that you make use of {{COI edit request}} so that an impartial editor may review them for inclusion. Warm regards,  Spintendo  19:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If I had access to alternatives I would have used them. I gain nothing from their use. I edit under my own name, so it cannot be claimed I tried to hide anything, and if you look at my user page you will find that I have declared that I would occasionally cite work that I was in some way connected with. Would you consider it a conflict of interest if I cited a document of which I was an editor or contributor, but got no credits? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Mike Beresford wrote the first edition, I updated it a few years later. For free, like Wikipedia. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, it's much appreciated. To paraphrase what you said, the reason why you're using this textbook is because it's the only source available on mixed gas use to verify those particular claims, and that you've made a disclosure on your main user page alerting editors to the connection. If that's correct, then I sympathize with what you're saying about the lack of sources being available. But there really ought to be similar publications from other English speaking CMAS‑related, non‑ISA organizations that say practically the same thing, and if found, could have been used. Also, since some of the uses of your textbook involve claims regarding the purely physiological effects of mixed gas use, those claims could conceivably be sourced from peer‑reviewed literature originating from the field of pulmonary medicine, which has extensive documentation on helium, oxygen and nitrogen gas usage—even if it's not always dive related, it would still get the job done in some instances. My main concern here is that 19 inclusions seems quite excessive. I'm happy to help you look for alternative sources if you'd like. Regards,  Spintendo  04:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Not in any way the only source that exists. Similar information will be available in textbooks from several other agencies, as it is mostly common knowledge, and often standard procedure, but those books are generally not available for free on the internet, and I don't pay to get access to sources. The information is also often available on the internet in sources like forums, which we are not allowed to use, because, as mentioned, it is usually common knowledge to technical divers. If you are willing to find other sources, I would appreciate a bit of collaborative effort on diving topics as it is currently a lonely topic area, and my proportional contribution is ridiculously large. I persevere because someone has to do it, and I am available, and on the whole I feel that my work is of some value to the world. There is always room for improvement, but good enough will do until better can be found. 19 is a tiny percentage of the references I have added over the years, which number in their thousands, possibly tens of thousands. I don't know how to count in a way that would be worth the effort, so it is possible I exaggerate. Point is, 19 is a very small fraction, and used when I cant find anything else after a reasonable amount of effort at the time. I will also admit that once cited, I will not usually spend a lot of effort to find another source, as it seems inefficient use of time, when there are other statements that also need sourcing. I am familiar with a lot of the peer reviewed literature, and cite it when I can, but it does not usually cover procedural aspects of diving. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In the search for alternate sources, I've located 8 instances where the problematic textbook can be replaced by another reference (either a newer reference I've located or one already in the article). The suggested changes are shown below. (As it involves the use of columns and colored sections of text which might prove distracting to other visitors to your talk page, I've placed my suggestions under collapsible text)

If all eight instances above are implemented, that would represent a 42% drop in the use of your textbook as a source for all the articles mentioned at the beginning of this thread, which I feel would be a step in the right direction towards meeting Selfcite's excessive use guideline. Please take a look at the suggestions above at your earliest convenience and let me know if any of them work for you, and/or any issues you might see with their use. Regards,  Spintendo  16:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that some of the cites are not technically necessary, but when nominating for GA I have found that reviewers tend to insist that no trailing clause is left uncited, no matter how obvious.

If you are satisfied that the alternative sources are adequate, you are welcome to substitute them. There is nothing controversial about any of the claims listed above, and they could reasonably be described as common knowledge. I intend to look at them anyway in case they are useful for other purposes too. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not. The first two I looked at are about carbon monoxide toxicity which is about a contaminant of breathing gas not an inert or normal constituent. They do not appear to mention valid breathing gases used at the wrong depth at all, so not useful. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

S2CID 56946309 does not appear to link to the full text, so I can't check it. The title and authors are familiar, and it is quite possible that it contains relevant material, but that will take further work to verify. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I found the full text but it is not a useful reference for this specific statement. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I am still as a loss as to what the use of the source could be construed to be 'promoting'. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

doi:10.5923/j.sports.20130302.01 does not seem to exist. I get error message: DOI Not Found 10.5923/j.sports.20130302.01 This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Add additional deep safety stops during a deep dive (the efficacy of this approach has not been supported by experiment) this was a commonly held belief by technical divers which was supported by some theoretical material, but more recently tests have been made which do not support the hypothesis, but also do not fully falsify it. Current expert consensus is that it is unlikely to be useful to the extent that was claimed, but it has not been completely dismissed. What can be said is that deep stops are not efficient. I will track down the reference for the lower efficiency. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I found a nice video source which explains the problem in easy to understand terms by Mark Powell who is a reliable source. It is 1h22min, so quite a long watch, but how much you need to watch depens on your backround. from about halfway if you are up on the general deco theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhfNph3GKRw I may well expand a bit based on this. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

doi:10.2478/phr-2025-0002 is about risk in saturation diving, which is not directly comparable with technical diving for a number of reasons. I will look into it more thoroughly as it may be a useful reference for other content, but I don't think it is likely to be useful for this particular statement · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

As I deduced from the abstract it is not useful for this case but I intend to use it in Saturation diving in the safety and risk section in a new subsection on technical and systems risk, so thanks for finding it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, Pbsouthwood, I don't think that citing your own work 19 times over the course of 10 years of editing and the fat end of 200k edits would not be considered unreasonable. We do not want people linking to their own publications purely for the sake of it; at the same time, if a subject matter expert who happens to have published significant work on a topic is willing to donate their time to the project, we do not want to drive them away or tie their hands by telling them that they cannot ever cite their own work. I am not an expert on diving (far from it), but given that these citations constitute a tiny fraction of your overall contributions, I think that if someone thinks that they are problematic, the onus would be on them to demonstrate why. Absent a better agument than 'he's referenced his own work', I see no reason why you should have to go to extraordinary lengths (or indeed, any lengths) to replace these citations.

(I recognise that, as I write this, your account is blocked; I am hopeful that you will be prepared to engage in the discussion about close paraphrasing, and that the block will be lifted in short order, so I thought I'd just speak my mind on this particular point which I find to be a bit of a non-thing.) Girth Summit _(blether) 14:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: This isn't a case of citing your own work 19 times, rather, its citing their own work 89 times over 19 different articles. The fact that the textbook is being used to begin with isn't really the problem, it's Southwood unilaterally placing those 89 cites in these articles without impartial review. That's 89 specific instances where instead of doing the extra work using {{COI edit request}} to add these sources to those articles, they chose to take a shortcut by adding it themselves. Is it really a stretch noticing how the shortcut taken avoiding COI edit requests might be symptomatic of a larger issue—that is—the need to take shortcuts in close-paraphrasing? I'd say the two go hand in hand. Now you can try to minimize my concerns here, but what you'd really be doing is enabling them to continue taking shortcuts. I for one appreciate greatly the work they're doing in this thread to address Selfcite issues, as it demonstrates showing better judgement in the work on their articles, a betterment in judgement we all benefit from. If you had approached them at least once over these nine years with advice on exercising better judgement in shortcut-taking (such as the wisdom in letting other editors add their textbook to articles) who's to say they would be in the same position they are now with close paraphrasing? Who knows how things might have been different for them and their judgement, had you or others intervened sooner rather than later.  Spintendo  05:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that I didn't appreciate that it was multiple times in each article, resulting in a total of 89 cites, which is a bigger number than 19, so thanks for explaining that. With that said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to linking the two issues by putting them in a single 'taking shortcuts' pigeonhole. Maybe they're linked, or maybe they're two separate issues where Pbsouthwood thought what they were doing was fine and didn't realise that people would see it as taking a shortcut. And while 89 is a bigger number than 19, when their contributions are in counted in six figures it doesn't really make me think that their purpose here is self-promotion. Is there anything to suggest that these citations are inappropriate, or that better sources are available (better in any sense other than 'someone else wrote it')? Girth Summit _(blether) 21:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I wanna published my bio, how can i published my bio --Ahsan Rakib Nishatt (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Category Details Name Ahsan Rakib Nishat Year of Birth 1996 Father's Name Md Nazrul Islam Mother's Name Najma Begum Place of Birth Chittagong, Bangladesh Home District Brahmanbaria, Chittagong Division, Bangladesh Alleged Status The world political lead Man (verified). --Ahsan Rakib Nishatt (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting the removal of the word portion of the description in the first lead of the ‘Social democracy’ page that describes it as within socialism, following a majority disagreeing --AnAnonymousUser222 (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:K-123 (Kansas highway) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 15:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pbsouthwood and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Peter, it would be very helpful to hear from you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pbsouthwood over the next day or two. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza Strip on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I have a conflict of interest as I am connected to the subject - Jing Lee. She helped my ukrainian community in South Australia. I’m seeking help/assitance from an independent editor to review and, if appropriate, implement neutral, well-sourced updates to her article. I’ve posted a request at the COI Noticeboard, but I’m not sure how the process will work out. I know your stated topics of interest are different, but I thought you might be able to guide me or suggest next steps. By the way, I noticed your underwater photography. It brought back wonderful memories from my own diving experiences before the war in Ukraine. Thank you for sharing those images; they truly revived good moments. I appreciate any advice or assistance you can offer. --DataCheck108 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

I enjoyed the quotes on your user page. Miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:K-57 (Kansas highway) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 00:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Nominator inactive for 50 days, both for the GAN you have opened and for the Modafinil article as well. It might be time to close them both as inactive. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The Committee resolves by motion:

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Pbsouthwood

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Machu Picchu on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 21:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pbsouthwood: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Pbsouthwood,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 10:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 10:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello --Fullmedame (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Hi Pbsouthwood. Thank you for your work on Chlorurus atrilunula. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

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

Mariamnei (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this is an inactive account, please remove it. Thank you! --AmyAA234 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

Losing you is bad news. The project needs you.

I request that you come back, apologize to arbcom, and work with the admins and editors who wish you to reform.

Many others have gone through something similar, but only a fraction of those swallowed their pride, took to heart what the community was trying to tell them, and returned as collaborative contributing members of the community. Over a decade ago, Rich Farmbrough was blocked by arbcomm for a year. He bucked the system until they slammed him hard. He took his punishment in stride, gave up what he had been doing that had pissed off a lot of people, rolled up his sleeves and got back to work on this amazing world-serving project. He has always been a highly respected member of the community, even more so after he reformed and returned.

I hope you come back.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   05:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Category:Manufacturers by product type has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

My account request for undeletion has been approved. I am now trying to see if someone in the Wiki community can direct me to someone who can be a developer of this content and article and prepare it for submission. --Darrinpdaniel (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Good evening @Darrinpdaniel ! Pbsouthwood is no longer an administrator and is no longer active. I saw you created an article about yourself in 2017, and then proposed a draft article about yourself in 2025, so this clearly means a lot to you.

I researched the subject a bit, I found that you were the executive director of the Cup of Excellence from 2017 to 2023, where the Cup of Excellence, often described as the Olympics of Coffee, was founded under the UN-related auspices of the International Coffee Organization and the International Trade Centre, so I found that you were the leader of a notable organization, and I deeply respect what you do in real life, so I researched it further according to Wikipedia standards.

I researched what the sources say about you, Darrin Daniel, because in Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. I went through the ten sources you provided in the draft article, and they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability, because they talk about something else, not about you specifically. In Wikipedia, the sources must provide "significant coverage" (meaning it is talking about you specifically), "reliable" (meaning it is widely trustworthy in the field), and "independent" (meaning it is talking about you without any involvement from you). This is to ensure that the article about you is trusted by readers, and to ensure that the readers won't doubt you.

I found three such sources in the field of coffee:

1. https://www.baristamagazine.com/darrin-daniel-appointed-executive-director-cup-excellence/ (This source met the three criteria I mentioned, it demonstrates the newsworthiness of your appointment as executive director, and provides a lot of trustworthy secondary assessment of your background prior to your appointment)

2. https://www.gcrmag.com/executive-director-of-coe-steps-down-after-six-years-of-service/ (This source met the three criteria I mentioned, it is probably the highest quality source of the three, it demonstrates the newsworthiness of your resignation, and provides a lot of trustworthy secondary assessment of your tenure as executive director)

3. https://www.dailycoffeenews.com/2023/03/15/ace-cup-of-excellence-executive-director-darrin-daniel-resigns/ (This source met the three criteria I mentioned, it also demonstrates the newsworthiness of your resignation, and provides a lot of trustworthy secondary assessment of your tenure as executive director)

This means that your article should be able to pass the Articles of Creation review, but only if you do it properly. I laid out all the relevant Wikipedia standards, the useable sources, and I will now lay out the advice to go about it:

1. You will not be able to use AI, like you did with the draft article, because I checked it, and it contained plainly false citations, and probably many others. In any case, using AI would immediately cause reviewers not to trust you.

2. You will need to read WP:SYNTH, you cannot carry out original research, everything you write must be directly cited to the three sources, this is pretty strict according to Wikipedia neutrality standards.

3. You will need to read WP:FIXCLOSEPARA, you cannot carry out copyright violation, this is way stricter than other websites, and that close paraphrasing is also not allowed, and this could result in bans by administrators, due to legal ramifications from Wikimedia Foundation. In any case, this is also intended to result in high quality articles, WP:FIXCLOSEPARA (which you must read and follow closely) requires you to take notes of the important points in the sources, close the sources, write in your own words with neutrality, then cite the sources.

4. You should not write too much, even five sentences and these three sources are enough, this is the standard for all new articles, every reviewer knows this, and the reason is that it is most important that the article is trustworthy even if short, than untrustworthy no matter how long, there is no need to add more sources.

You may refer the reviewers to my comment if needed, if you were following my advice. I hope that you are able to pass this time, good luck! ~2026-16019-65 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding User:Pbsouthwood has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in December of 2025 to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Pbsouthwood requested it within three months. Because Pbsouthwood has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood#Pbsouthwood: Motion to suspend.

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood closed

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

• ARandomName123

• Biblioworm
• Causa sui
• Djsasso
• Espresso Addict
• Fenix down
• Firefangledfeathers
• GeneralNotability
• NawlinWiki
• Northamerica1000
• Smalljim

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

• The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.