User talk:Star Mississippi

Let's see if this works better than my User page. Not signing so they don't archive.

Your draft article, Draft:Parkrun USA

Hello, Star Mississippi. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Parkrun USA".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for salting Avaada Group, also I just noticed that a couple of editors in last AfD have been blocked for UPE. Zalaraz (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Such a bizarre topic. I'm guessing competing UPE firms, but @Timtrent would know more. Thanks for raising the issue @Zalaraz Star Mississippi 02:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I fear not. I just knew the article was "poor" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

~2026-44221-17 has asked for a deletion review of Moneypenny Group. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like my account to be unblocked. Back in May, I was blocked and the criteria for getting unblocked was either wait at least 6 months from the day of the block or have 12 accepted Wikipedia draft articles upon being reviewed. 12 Wikipedia drafts I have either moved myself to mainspace or I have made edits on and were later moved to mainspace by other users are listed below. I think this is sufficient evidence to get my account unblocked.

All Nippon Airways Flight 140

Skylink Airlines Flight 070

TACA Flight 510

2013 Makani Kai Air Cessna 208 crash

Joy General Aviation Flight 6005

1990 Dubenec Tupolev Tu-154 crash

1969 Da Nang mid-air collision

Aviaco Flight 260

VASP Cargo Flight 780

ATRAN Flight 9655

1965 Damascus Alia Handley Page Herald crash

Lóide Aéreo Nacional Flight 652 Matt574 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Good morning @Matt574 and apologies for the delay while I was traveling. Please follow the instructions on WP:GAB and an administrator will review your request. I lack the on wiki time right now to review your creations. Star Mississippi 14:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Why did you decide it was a merge when nobody bar me and the other person even responded in the discussion? I am personally against the proposal. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Women's Baseball World Cup Group A

I did not decide. I closed it to reflect the nomination because there was no opposition to the proposal. You didn't even make your opposition clear in your participation. If you believe my close was in error, you're welcome to file a Deletion Review, but please be mindful of feedback you have received about these articles in the past.

NB: Please link discussions/articles when you inquire. It makes it easier for all. Star Mississippi 19:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

(re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijeet Dipke (activist))

I might be wrong about how this works, but I think some of the necessary attribution for material at Cockroach Janta Party (merged in after the first Abhijeet Dipke AfD) got wiped out by the move (unless the history of the previous version of Abhijeet Dipke remains publicly available somewhere?). Draft:Abhijeet Dipke doesn't include that history, but we do need to keep it around because a bunch of stuff from it was copied to then-Abhijeet Dipke (activist). In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 03:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Complete mockery of process breaking things only because a valid bold recreation was not respected. Instead of

• AfD -> recreated -> potentially another (genuine) AfD

we got

• AfD -> recreated -> illegitimately reverted multiple times contrary to policy -> Deletion review (pointless, against the purpose, didn't and couldn't lead to anything) -> Arbitration enforcement (aimed at a good-faith recreator, waste of time, no action) -> name-gaming draft created (which is not legitimate, unlike recreating an article); content copied from the article -> dubious AfC legitimizing a name-gaming draft and moving to an obviously inapproriate mainspace title -> another AfD—a non-genuine one—with zero deletion-supporting energy behind the nomination, very soon withdrawn, pure bureaucracy -> the actual and original article sitting underneath the redirect is absurdly deleted -> attribution?

All of that nonsense so that illegitimate WP:STONEWALLING, which is a form of gaming behavior itself, would be circumvented. A form of disruptive editing and gaming was incorrectly treated as legitimate and was empowered by an administrator, and then more gaming was used and was legitimized with spurious AfC and AfD paperwork to defeat it. —Alalch E. 08:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that flag @Autoinvective, I have restored it.

@Alalch E. I'm not 100% sure I'm following your reply. Can you clarify please? As far as I'm aware, I'm uninvolved in the prior discussions about the article subject. Thanks! Star Mississippi 16:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

There never would have been an attribution question if the normal editorial process had been honored; this would have meant that the actual and original Abhijeet Dipke article underneath the redirect would not have been deleted as it paradoxically has been.

It has been deleted to make way for the recreation via a name-gaming maneuver. In other words: The article on this topic has now been recreated by deleting the article (with a redirect illegitimately enforced over it via status-quo stonewalling) to make way for a name-gaming copy of the same (not identical but similar enough to call it a copy). So, yes, the article has been deleted in order for it to be recreated via replacement with its copy inserted into mainspace via name gaming.

Instead of that, the article should have been recreated by … being recreated. As it had been recreated. It had already been recreated, but it was wrongly and disruptively turned back into a redirect (instead of an AfD potentially being started to judge the recreation; why would a stonewaller jeopardize their position by starting an AfD which could decide against their preferred state when they can stonewall ad nauseam and thereby decide the matter unilaterally, and do so with administrator backing). Help was sought, but it was incorrectly withheld, and the editor who sought help was attacked—this occurred in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 July 26#Abhijeet Dipke.

What should have happened is the cessation of stonewalling at the original page, which would have meant that we now have this same article—with a continuous intact history—without that pointless DRV ever having happened, and especially without my being additionally time-wastingly dragged to AE, which occurred in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive373#Alalch_E..

Without these terrible deviations from process and gaming behavior to defeat gaming behavior, we would not have been talking about attribution now. —Alalch E. 17:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I gather that Alalch blames my AfD for contributing to the problem, but I agree that the history is pretty miserable. My annotations:

• AfD: Original version of Abhijeet Dipke BLARed into Cockroach Janta Party because WP:BIO1E per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abhijeet_Dipke
• Creation of Draft:Abhijeet Dipke with none of the original history, although subsequent edits may have copied from the history of the BLARed original
• recreated: Not sure, I think this refers to the unBLAR/BLAR edit warring concurrent with ...
• Deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2026_July_26#Abhijeet_Dipke, consensus was that the review was started in order to (incorrectly) relitigate the AfD
• Arbitration enforcement: This is my first time hearing about this, and I haven't gone through it yet, but Alalch provided the link above
• name-gaming draft created: This was Draft:Abhijeet Dipke (activist), created while Draft:Abhijeet Dipke already existed
• dubious AfC: Draft:Abhijeet Dipke (activist) approved through AfC, entered mainspace as Abhijeet Dipke (activist) while Abhijeet Dipke still redirected to Cockroach Janta Party and Draft:Abhijeet Dipke was still being improved—this is where I entered this mess
• Failed attempt by myself to generate consensus for resolving this on various related Talk pages
• another AfD: Mine, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijeet Dipke (activist), because one way or another it would fix things, or so I thought
• very soon withdrawn: Meaning one of the contributors to Draft:Abhijeet Dipke copied a bunch of that material to Abhijeet Dipke (activist), making WP:BIO1E no longer a concern and cutting straight through the second AfD but ultimately compounding the attribution problems
• the actual and original article sitting underneath the redirect is [...] deleted: Your G6 of the original Abhijeet Dipke in order to make way for Abhijeet Dipke (activist)
• attribution: Where we are now

Some of this is my fault, which I will blame on my inexperience. I should have pushed harder for a resolution that didn't result in what might be intractable attribution issues (e.g. perhaps unBLARing of Abhijeet Dipke, merging of Draft:Abhijeet Dipke and Abhijeet Dipke (activist) material into Abhijeet Dipke, BLAR of both of them to preserve attribution, or else I should have just tagged Abhijeet Dipke (activist) for G4 and let the contributors to Draft:Abhijeet Dipke figure it out). Draft:Abhijeet Dipke probably should have started from the original history at Abhijeet Dipke (if this is even possible, I don't know). Draft:Abhijeet Dipke (activist) should not have been created (I agree this was name gaming), and absolutely should not have been approved at AfC (the approver even noticed that the disambiguation parenthetical shouldn't exist, but stopped there and moved on).

Anyway, I've been screaming internally about this since a week and a half ago, when people started replacing links to Abhijeet Dipke with links to Abhijeet Dipke (activist) in pages I was watching. I imagine Alalch's been screaming since the first AfD in May. You have my sincere apologies if this drives you to join in. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 21:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't stress about it; it's a comprehensive failure of process on multiple levels. There is no going back, and nothing needs to be done anymore, but everyone still needs to understand that none of this was necessary. None of these things were proper or reasonable. None of them were legitimate "extra steps" born from some "just to be sure" mindset. None of this getting-the-paperwork-sorted-out business is remotely backed by any policy, and it was, in fact, WP:GAME behavior.

For example, facing opposition from someone who undoes your recreation does not mean you (or someone else who agrees with you) should use AfC (???). What needs to be used is wp:Dispute resolution. AfC is not a dispute resolution venue. In the case of a dispute, editors have to follow dispute resolution (or they can give up), and if there is a conduct problem, well, then, what might initially have been a content dispute might be addressed on the conduct side, with the help of administrators if needed.

Here, conduct-related help was sought, but it was sought at DRV, which does not help with that. It is not true that the DRV consensus was that the review was started in order to (incorrectly) relitigate the AfD—the DRV was started to get help with WP:STONEWALLING, because the nominator received incorrect advice that they could get help there, and they were given that wrong advice by the editor doing the stonewalling. As can be seen from the DRV close, no particular consensus formed in the DRV, apart from a notional "endorse" (notional because the close wasn't even challenged). It couldn't have formed, because DRV is not a conduct forum. But it is still a forum frequented by administrators and experienced editors. The recreator still could have got help, but got the opposite. And the stonewalling editor could have been helped too by being given correct advice instead of an extra pair of hands.

Any idea that experienced editors in good standing, including an autopatrolled editor (Thilsebatti) and a new-page reviewer, cannot recreate an article and need an AfC stamp for some supposed formality to be fulfilled is an abomination. It is not policy-backed and is not supported by the community. Any idea that such editors do not deserve the courtesy of their recreation being judged in another AfD months after the last one (ultimately, no AfD work-hours were saved, as the AfD did ultimately happen) is horrible. And this idea was the shared idea among many involved editors here, which is concerning. This was a collective deviation from normal practices on multiple sides.

Then, the idea that AfD can be used by editors who want the article to be included, which is obviously what has happened here, as there had been no deletion impetus behind the nomination from the start (and even that nomination was withdrawn a day later), is against written norms of the deletion process, at the guideline Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Such discussions are baseless discussions that should not happen, and appropriate venues (of dispute resolution, generally—or—someone who actually supports deletion and has a deletion rationale to present should nominate) should be used. Quoting: A discussion may be closed as speedy keep [in the case of an] ... Absence of a deletion or merge rationale [such as when] the nominator fails to give intelligible grounds for deletion, userfying, redirection, or merging (perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or keeping) ... An example of this includes posting a nomination in response to ... an AfD discussion with consensus to delete, but advocating a keep position.

None of it was remotely appropriate and all of it was a gross excess over what should have happened: AfD -> article recreated -> potentially another (genuine) AfD. —Alalch E. 23:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Alalch E. @Autoinvective. Both of your histories clarify it which is what I definitely needed and appreciate.

You also underline a broader issue that I've seen with AfC/DRV. Article X is deleted at AfD-select members of the community take that to mean there can never be an article on Subject X. This leads to so much waste of time at DRV especially if a reviewing admin at REFUND won't even restore it to draft because AfD. When the reality is consensus can and does change. Regularly. We also really, really need to stop calling editors "appellants" which just contributes to the "I'm here to argue with you" rather than "let's sort out the best place for this content to live and how to make that happen"

That environment contributes to the frustration and editor retention issues (in general) which (in this specific case) led to title gaming. Star Mississippi 13:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there are still attribution issues. The G6ed version of Abhijeet Dipke was needed for attribution at Cockroach Janta Party. Not that I have any idea where it could/should be restored to. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 23:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Autoinvective I restored the history when you flagged it over the weekend. So those and the edits that were moved from the (activist) title are both under Abhijeet Dipke. Let me know if there are any you know of that don't appear. Star Mississippi 01:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I understand now. I didn't even know merging history like that was possible, thank you. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 01:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

No worries @Autoinvective

There are a couple of ways to handle it, but this seemed simplest this way you or any other editor can refer back if there's something that wasn't merged/moved to the draft and still make use of it. Star Mississippi 03:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)