Jump to content

User talk:Sdrqaz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped "Shadow docket" become a good article.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sdrqaz (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 5 January 2022 (→Request deletion: Addition of reply to Valdemarpeterson regarding sourcing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Woman in white dress sat on stairs, singing
My filing cabinets: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7

A kitten for you!

Hi! ))

Олег Черкасский (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Олег. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you? Sdrqaz Олег Черкасский (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine; I hope you're well. Is there something you'd like to ask about Wikipedia? Sdrqaz (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My English is not very good. But I'm trying to write articles, it's interesting to me. I have a lot of mistakes in the article about Ksenia Svarovski? I do not understand why they want to delete this article.Олег Черкасский (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Олег, I think they want to delete the article because it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, more specifically because of a lack of significant coverage. "Significant coverage" means that the sources need to be about Ksenia herself, not just things that she's said or written. These sources also need to be in good detail: they cannot just mention her. I think another concern others have brought up is that the sources seem promotional, which mean they aren't independent sources. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, dear! Олег Черкасский (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksenia Svarovski.

Revising Vestwell page

Hello Sdrqaz. I'd appreciate the opportunity to revise the content of Vestwell page with significantly pared down information as well as citing only third-party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcomms (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epcomms, as I'm not an administrator I cannot restore Draft:Vestwell for you. Given that it was deleted by Ks0stm, you can choose to talk to him on his talk page to see if he wants to restore it for you. Alternatively, you can just create another page on Vestwell, but you need to be careful to not make it promotional, or it will be deleted again. All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Conversation was following the page move of Vestwell to Draft:Vestwell, which was subsequently deleted and recreated.

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
For reviewing more than 500 articles during the backlog drive.
The Teamwork Barnstar
For re-reviewing at least 25 articles during the backlog drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 524 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021.

Shadi Skaf

Do you have an actual source that Shadi Skaf has made 3 international appearances? All of the sources in the article suggest he's made none, and if he hasn't actually made a full international appearance, he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I don't believe I stated that he had made three international appearances. I had removed the PROD and moved it to draftspace for effectively the same reasons you've stated at AfD – he does not yet meet the football guideline but will probably do so in the future, as I notified the creator. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake- I've asked the wrong person. Should be asking the article creator (not you, who moved it to draftspace). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Roemer page

Hello Sdrqaz! Thank you for your comments on my research. I have moved my information to the page you linked and removed one of the sources I used in my original post since I found that it was very difficult to open. Let me know if you notice anything that needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammySamy (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SammySamy, it looks good, and thank you for moving it over. I've made some changes to the page, including removing the long list of positions – listing the most important positions should be fine, but the Wikipedia article should not act as a curriculum vitae of sorts. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Conversation was regarding my message at SammySamy's talk page.

Query regarding the deleted data on Wikipedia page named as Chaman

Hi, I hope this message will find you in high spirits. Thanks for knowing me on my promotional editing on a page named Chaman, but most of that information was not promotional kindly restore that information and editing which you deleted with other promotional stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inamullahtopper (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inamullahtopper: I hope you are well too. Most of the information I removed from Chaman was because it was unsourced or non-neutral or both (for example "the peopled are left to deprive from hunger ... In spite of this in order to improve the living of the people, the government and FC officials grabbed the only source of income from the people by imposing sanctions on imports from Afghanistan.") If you can find reliable sources that support those statements, please add them back in. However, Wikipedia is not your personal website. Your "profile image" does not belong here. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hello Sdrqaz: 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, Justiyaya 23:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
(Sdrqaz took some time to decide whether to put the reply in the box or outside – such is the life of this editor ...) Thank you, Justiyaya! I hope you and your loved ones are doing well, and are able to find some respite in the holiday season. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome :D Justiyaya 04:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improve my articles

I see you make good edits on Wikipedia. So I would like you to correct some problems in my article I made. Cause I want to know where I went wrong and improve on it. Tylerbrizyy (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler, Wikipedia is not the place for promotion. All of the sources on the page you created were either from social media websites (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc) or from his own website. Moreover, the subject did not have a credible claim of significance. The awards he achieved, like "Getting verified on Spotify as an official artist" and "passing over 85,000 total video views on Instagram" are simply not enough for Wikipedia, which needs its subjects to be notable – that means having multiple reliable, independent sources writing about them at good detail. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

大仆街

Hello, Sdrqaz,

I think this deletion request might need more explanation as it has been sitting for more than 8 hours without an admin taking action. It's not clear how it is vandalism. You might consider nominating it at WP:RFD where you can provide an explanation on why this page should be deleted. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I assumed that the delay was due to the time of the year; I've had some nominations stay in the queue for longer. To provide context on my tag, according to Wiktionary, 大 means "big" and the last two characters are a Cantonese vulgar term. Going to RfD may be unnecessary, given that the redirect met the criteria for speedy deletion. Perhaps using {{db-reason}} and linking to those Wiktionary pages would have been more helpful for reviewing administrators in the future instead of my unexplained tag under G3 and R3. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British politician sex RFD

I apologise if my comment in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#British politician sex offended you or you otherwise felt inappropriate. That was not my intention. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offended by your comment, Thryduulf. I just have a policy of not commenting on my personal life beyond what is on my userpage, so I needed to make clear that I was neither confirming nor denying anything substantive. Other editors (like you) are free to write as they wish. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Have you ever considered it? I'm one of the administrators who regularly watches UAA, and whenever I see a report with your signature I know it's an open and shut case; I haven't ever found cause to decline you. Goodness knows we need more administrators, and UAA can get plenty backlogged. I'd be happy to do a nomination, I've done a few and my last one went about as well as could be expected (I've also done a more contentious one, which worked out in the end, so I've seen both sides of it). I know RfA is considered an unholy nightmare, but people thought that of RfA when I went for it and mine went off without a hitch. No pressure, I know not everyone wants to deal with it, but if you're up for it I'm happy to help kickstart it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm honoured that you'd suggest it and appreciate your kind words. I've given it some thought, but am reluctant, mainly due to how many fronts from which opposition can come. I think it's only fair that I be upfront about them: lack of activity at AfD (an aspect of the project I tried to take interest in and failed), a shameful incident from July that is painful to read back (User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 2 § working with US Census data), a discussion from September where I didn't disengage from "defending" a DYK I nominated (Special:Permalink/1046296710 § Current DYK), and two CSDs from November where I wasn't careful enough (Special:Diff/1054250393 and Kalaniot Books). That's the figurative dirt on me, and if voters were to oppose me for those reasons, I'd understand (though maybe not the AfD one). I'd also understand if reading through those links, you don't want your name associated with my prospective RfA. Regardless of your decision, I'd like to get shadow docket through to GA first: I'm waiting for one of your colleagues to get back to me before I'm comfortable nominating it. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has a perfect record or anything, I certainly had my own (relatively recent, at the time of my RfA) misfires and less-than-ideal moments. If anything, I find it more off-putting to see people who try too hard to be The Perfect CandidateTM, because being an admin inherently involves making some decisions and taking some actions; if you aren't making a mistake every so often, you're not getting enough done. That said, I totally get your wanting to finish your GA nomination, so good luck with that. If it helps, at the time of my RfA this was the only article I'd ever created (still true today), and the articles I list at my RfA were the only significant content contributions I'd ever made (later on I got around to this and this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's reassuring, Blade, thank you. The case of Genie is a fascinating one from a scientific point of view, though simultaneously tragic. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you don't want to think about my RfA. But they aren't all that bloody, some candidates, especially recently, seem to sail through. It did help me having great nominators like The Blade of the Northern Lights...by Day #4 they helped decide not to throw in the towel and it all worked out at the end. It can be a long 7 days so pick a good time to run your RfA when your schedule isn't stressful. You look like you have some great supporters right here! They are invaluable should the voting winds change.
My only advice is to mention that there is no perfect RfA candidate, every one has their own strengths and weaknesses. And you have no idea what the grounds will be that someone will oppose you (some of the reasons are completely ridiculous or trivial) so don't worry about everyone liking you. It's all about having the majority of voters trust that you will make good decisions and that you can handle conflict in a civil manner. Possibly the most important question you are asked is not some technical question or how you voted in AfDs but offering an example or two of how you have successfully handled disputes...conflict is inevitable as an admin and voters need to see that you can handle it calmly when it happens. Good luck and Happy New Years! Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Liz, for your important perspective and advice as someone who's been through those nail-biters. I opined in WP:RFA2021 that standards seem to have lowered slightly in the years since your RfA, though others have said that it's because only the "perfect" candidates put themselves forward. I'm certainly not one of them. Thank you for the reassurance and happy new year! Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!
As above! You might get some pushback in regards to content, but it definitely wouldn't hurt to do a WP:RFAPOLL at the very least! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, TNT. Much to think about, and thank you for activating the Bat-Signal for additional input. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh, I literally just came here to post that you should RfA after you pinged us for oversight in -revdel on IRC. I'd gladly write a nom. Not a huge fan of the RfA poll (which, imo, can only hurt candidates and doesn't actually provide that valuable input... sorry TNT), but if you really want to go that route to get feedback from others, it is certainly open to you. My one point of feedback would be that getting an article to GA might be good, but if you put substantial work into those DYKs, it might be enough to overcome it. If The Blade of the Northern Lights, TNT, or anyone else would prefer to nom, I'll gladly step aside, but thought I'd extend the offer. . TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Sdrqaz is surprised that three Oversighters independently[?] made the trek to the backwater that is this talk page to encourage an RfA run ...) On a serious note, Tony, I'm honoured that you'd offer a nomination. It's a little overwhelming that people I respect think I would do well. As for the comment on GAs, shadow docket was my first "real" project, to the point that I delayed writing my other DYKs so it could be the first one. It doesn't feel right to go into RfA with "unfinished business", so to speak (I've accepted that an FA is not possible in the next few years for that subject). If the nomination fails, I'll reconsider my position, but I'd rather wait until that's done. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On my end it was actually independent. If I'm being the nom, I don't think I'd want to review the GA in case someone says I passed it for the sake of the RfA, but maybe someone like Ritchie333 could take a look at it? The problem with GAs is the process is so backlogged now. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good. There is an ongoing backlog drive and of course the WikiCup, so hopefully a reviewer will take it up soon. I agree that the perception of partiality is reason enough not to take the review. (Also acknowledging your email on behalf of the Oversight team, thanks). Sdrqaz (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John. Brevity is king. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apt move

Thank you for removing that entry from the NPP TP, at the time of the entry, the idea was for more eyes looking at the AFD, in hindsight, I clearly see how that came off as something other than what was intended. I was going to remove the entry when I discovered you beat me to it. Thank you for that action. It is very much appreciated. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Celestina. Thank you for your message and reflection. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion

I do not see a reason for the request deletion for the Jack Murphy page I created. The content is sourced and the content is of better quality than many wikipedia pages currently up. Additionally, the content that the page is about is about a public figure that has received a lot of notoriety, and everything is sourced. I looked at the other page that has a request deletion for it as well, and I fail to see how the page I created is viewed in the same regard as that page. This is insulting. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valdemarpeterson: Perhaps I'm overreacting, but when there is a chance that real people will be affected by our actions here on Wikipedia, I would much rather we were safe than sorry. Jack Murphy (author) is currently sourced to two sources: one from The American Conservative and another from a website called UnHerd. The community has in the past determined (scroll down to the relevant section) that The American Conservative has dubious factual accuracy. UnHerd states that it aims to "push back against the herd mentality with new and bold thinking, and to provide a platform for otherwise unheard ideas, people and places", which does not fill me with faith in its reporting. When the material in a page is so negative, exceptional sources are needed and I'm simply not seeing them at the moment. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sdrqaz&oldid=1063795416"