User talk:Sdrqaz: Difference between revisions

Click here to leave a message ... This talk page is archived manually on the 15th day of every month, when the previous month's conversations are filed into storage. This applies unless it would lead to no conversations being left. If the user switches to bot-based archiving, the account has been compromised. Send help.

Filing cabinet

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Hi, you declined my speedy request and I see it was probably not right category. Sorry for that. But this version 2 page and subsequent redirect is nonsense. What approach you suggest here? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest letting it be,

Dhinchak Pooja (version 2) has the page history of several formerly-deleted versions of Dhinchak Pooja, but was restored by an administrator to let others see the page history (see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge/Archive 31 § Rejected requests July 2018, which isn't very clear either). This is one of the things on Wikipedia where the effort needed to delete it isn't worth it.

I also notice that you have been moving articles into draftspace (Deep6, Chingari (app), Sumit Ghosh). There are guidelines here on how it should be done: amongst other things, you should notify the original author on their talk page and should not draftify pages over 90 days old. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah yeah, I know, I'll get to it in a few weeks. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my intention, but it's nice to see things work out. Happily, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	This is the second time within two days that I'm positively impressed by your careful application of tools, your careful analysis of the situation and the advice provided beyond default templates. It's good to have you in the team. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This means a lot coming from someone I respect, ToBeFree. Thank you for the warm welcome. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See this conversation at User talk:Theroadislong and this comment at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase.

Which page is now the foundation of the Rise of the TMNT Movie page? I’m beginning to think the manner you went about this was wrong--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

needed attribution, so I carried out a history merge. You can think about it as taping together a piece of paper that's been torn in two, or sewing back the arm of a teddy bear. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Draft:2022 New York's 19th congressional district special election. If we compare the 4 May versions of the two pages, when Amariokart finished their initial bout of editing (article and draft), there are enough differences that makes it seem like they sprang up independently: different citation styles for the New York Times source, as well as other formatting and citation differences elsewhere. As we know, these election articles follow a certain template, so there are bound to be similarities. After that, there have been some efforts to harmonise the two pages, so it may seem more similar now than it was before.

As for the content side of the issue, there has been reporting from that aforementioned New York Times source, POLITICO, and Bloomberg saying that Gov. Hochul has announced that Rep. Delgado will resign this month. I think that many (including myself previously) misinterpret CRYSTAL to mean that we cannot have articles based on speculation on future events. However, "[a]ll articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This seems to be the case here. I would suggest redirecting the draft to the article and merging any extra information over, with an edit summary noting that it came from the draft to retain attribution. Unfortunately, a history merge here would shuffle the two histories together, rendering the merged one unintelligible. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If you don't mind can you please take the appropriate steps. I'm in an exam season and unable to dedicate much time here at the moment. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I've since redirected the draft to mainspace as per the suggestion. Thank you very much. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't get around to dealing with it, CX. Thanks for letting me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason you removed the tag, but it there is another draft version of it,

You can redirect the second draft to the original if you wish,

after six months if there aren't any other edits. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

What do you mean by that phrase? That user did nothing but copy paste from an article many other editors tirelessly worked on for months. This is not an article by any means.--Sakiv (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: It means non-redirect history. It was not a judgement on the page's quality. Generally speaking, pages tagged with {{db-move}} are only deleted if they were only redirects for the entirety of their history (or, at least, that's supposed to be the case). Sdrqaz (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for deleting one of my sandboxes after CSD tagging. I noticed that you referenced G2 in the edit summary; per

@

EpicPupper: I am aware, but thank you for reminding me. Looking back at my CSD nomination log and my deletion log, I can't find any other G2s in userspace. When deleting that page, I tried to provide a little more information beyond the boilerplate reasons, but ended up adding a criterion that did not apply onto the one that did apply. Regardless, I've restored and re-deleted the page to correct the log entry. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

hello, you messaged Doesnt qualify now anyways, could you specify what the page doesn't qualify for? And what revisions need to be made? if any, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystuff345 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

revisions. As there was some content in the page history before you removed it, the tag was wrong when it was placed. The page had content when I came across it, so I removed the tag. As for what changes need to be made, it is not at risk of being deleted for having no content. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Arabi Abrar, for the redirect to be deleted, you need to have an article ready for that title. You can create your page in draftspace (like at Draft:Chief Minister of East Pakistan) or if you have already prepared an article off-wiki, you can replace the redirect with text from your article. The first option gives you more time to get it ready before publication. When it is ready, you can add {{db-move|name of your draft}} to the redirect so it can be deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, Sdrqaz,

I hope you had a pleasant weekend. I think if you look at the page history of

Hi, Liz; I hope you had a nice one too. I did look at the page history before deleting and restoring, and agree that it was created in error (I'd say almost all U2s are). However, the wording of U2 at the time was vague as to whether a deletion under those circumstances was permissible, as it is technically in the userspace of a renamed user. Where would Wikipedia be without these technicalities, I wonder? I've altered the text of the criterion to make it clearer and will be deleting it shortly. Thanks for reaching out and I hope that you're doing well too. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdrqaz,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 817 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Just informing you that you've had an impersonator (User:Sdrqez) pop up and close AFDs on your behalf. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How thoughtful of them. Thanks for letting me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your close of that discussion. It violates

(talk page watcher) @Piotrus: The discussion was closed by the impersonator mentioned above (and later by another impersonator). --Blablubbs (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) That close was done by User:Sdrqez, an impersonator of Sdrqaz. Already reverted. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs @Padgriffin Thank you all, I didn't notice that. Keep up the good work, everyone :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sdrqaz,

I hope you are well. Since you seem like you are following the lastest troll, I decided to protect several AFDs that he attacked with several different sockpuppets. I have never protected a discussion page before so I hope that people see this as a way to reduce vandalism. Feel free to lift it if you think it is counter-productive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz; hope you're good too. My instinct is that apart from the point they're trying to make, they aren't targeting those pages because they have some sort of animosity towards the subjects, but because they know that we're watching and they want to get caught: I was pinged twice by them in about three hours yesterday (1, 2). I suspect that they will move on to other pages. That being said, of course, nothing has happened since your protections, so I'm probably wrong. Indefinite for the protections, especially for the articles, may be too long, though. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding RV University, I was on new page patrol and noticed that it was a near-duplicate of a prior article that had been moved from mainspace to draftspace. I assume the editor is trying to get around draftification. I thought A10 was correct, but obviously not, since it doesn't apply to drafts. What do I do to remove this duplication? Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

AfD is probably the next step. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my speedy templates for unreasonable reasons. Is there something I did to you that I don't know? This is hard to understand! When do you think the draft should be deleted after 10 years, for example?--Sakiv (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia is not about winning. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The user you're referring to didn't even attribute the texts he copied to those who worked hard on the previous season's article. This behavior is definitely not acceptable. Regarding the first point, the passage of 6 months is not always a prerequisite, as I have seen sometimes.--Sakiv (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: So you tried to take revenge by getting their article deleted, and when that didn't work, usurped it? Your reaction to someone draftifying something you'd written was to give them a level-three warning for "vandalism" and say that "There was no point in what you did. The page has been reviewed and that's it. There are no other articles about this subject. The article will be developed in the next few days." You had moved two articles on that subject to incorrect titles (1, 2) days before that statement. How is this behaviour compatible with your permissions, granted by Schwede66 and TonyBallioni? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing now amounts to harassment and I demand that you stop immediately. I did not take revenge on anyone. Do you want to ask me about every mistake I made even if it was unintentional? Claudiogostoso did not even draftify the article correctly. --Sakiv (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]