User talk:CactusWriter

Bold text

{| style="width: 100%; border: 4px solid #00008B; background-color: #d0f0c0; padding: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 15px; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;"
 * - padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
 * colspan=3 style="vertical-align:top" |

Coat of arms (heraldy crown)
Hi CactusWriter. I've already mentioned issues with the article/editor to, but the editor creating Coat of arms (heraldy crown) has just re-created it again following your most recent deletion. That's the third time it'd been deleted today, I think, and it's also been moved to draft space. Anything you can do? I can tag for speedy deletion, again, but I think they'll just re-create it. They're not responding on their talk page. Cheers, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Bastun, I've deleted the article (again) and given the user a short block. Perhaps this will prod them to begin talking rather than continue with disruptive edits. Good luck. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cheers, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Reason
When the conversation about an article is going on, the reason to delete that article in a hurry??--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My question has not yet been answered. Why??? ---Gowtham Sampath (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gowtham Sampath. I will assume your question concerns the article Periyababusamudram. It was speedy deleted per WP:G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement of a copyrighted page. This is a legal issue for Wikipedia. For legal reasons, text or images that are currently copyrighted elsewhere must be removed immediately. I see that you have recreated the article without the copyrighted text. Please remember that it is always best practice to create text from scratch rather than copy-pasting from outside sources. If you have further questions, please ask. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Contents of a deleted article
Last month, you deleted Draft:Guyana Campaign per G3. The Guyana Campaign under Bolívar was very real, which makes me wonder what exactly the hoax article stated. Any clarity here would be much appreciated. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mebigrouxboy. That draft was deleted multiple times (both in draft space and main space) when editors found that "no evidence that this existed, let alone that the things written here are true or verifiable." Please note that the article you link to in Spanish Wikipedia was a military campaign in 1816-1817. The hoax article was an alleged campaign in 1714. Let me know if you need further clarification. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like it had something to do with Dutch history, given the pages that link to it. Is that accurate? - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. It described a confrontation between Portuguese, Dutch and French armies. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Ruda_Real?
Your explanation at the page didn’t make any sense. If you don’t think this constitutes a hoax please let MfD decide, don’t perform an illegitimate speedy deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Dronebogus, it probably would have been helpful if I had linked to the AN page. My larger explanation was given at Administrators' noticeboard where a request was made to delete the unused page. The page had been removed from WP:LOHOW for more than a year-and-a-half (since October 2022) without any controversy and remained unlinked to anywhere on WP other than talk pages. It was deleted again -- as it originally had been per AFD consensus. The current re-deletion is not illegitimate. Can you provide a further reason for keeping this unused page? —  Cactus Writer (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it was kind of up in the air whether Ruda Real was a real person. There’s a good possibility that if real (pun not intended) his music career was a hoax. Regardless as long as there was a legitimate reason to delete it I don’t care. Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The real name for "Ruda Real," given on that page along with the birthdate, death date and places of birth and death were exact matches for a person listed in public government records including the United States Social Security Administration. The music career part may or may not have been real but the actual person was real with a real family. The article should either have been speedy deleted originally as non-notable or vandalism. In either case, it remained a violation of our WP:BIO policy. Thanks for your input. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pppery. I've replied. And as I've always noted at the top of this talk page -- I have no issue with any administrator reversing my decisions. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Page restored and new Mfd created. — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding RD1
Hi CactusWriter, just a friendly reminder to remove copyvio-revdel from a page once you clean the history, since the template populates Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Thanks for helping to reduce the backlog. Complex / Rational 00:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Thanks for the reminder. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Signature
Just FYI, your new signature links to User:cactuswriter, which doesn't exist as a page. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Been futzing around with my sig -- thanks for the heads-up. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

AFDs
Hello, CactusWriter,

Thank you for your help closing AFD deletion discussions today. We always need more admins rotating in to spend some time assessing these discussions. However, please come familiar with XFDcloser and use it to close discussions. It's what all other closers and relisters use and it's a really simple-to-use editing tool. I know you are not using it now because you closed Articles for deletion/List of NX Files characters and the result was 22 broken redirect pages along with their talk pages. I needed to delete them all individually.

If you close an AFD with XFDcloser, then this awesome tool will not only delete the article, its talk page and all redirects to the deleted article (and their talk pages) but it will also remove any red links that are left over from the deletion of the article. It's really standard practice and it will make the process so much easier for you than handling each AFD discussion closure yourself, manually. Just a suggestion that might save you some time and worry. Thanks again for your help. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, Liz. As can be seen on my contributions, I had already used XFDcloser on all my other AFD closes today. And you're right, it certainly does simplify the process -- not like the old days of tedious manual closes. Sorry about any broken redirects. Appreciate your help. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Brittani Louise Taylor - University
I am so sorry… that was such a bonehead mistake. Thank you for fixing it! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No worries. It is a common mistake and easy enough to fix. Cheers! — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vecteezy (2nd nomination)
Just a heads up, this AfD was started by a now-blocked sock, so you may want to reconsider the close – maybe a relist while striking their comments? Cheers, Number   5  7  00:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I just came to post about the same AFD. I was looking at some recent AFDs created by a sockpuppet and came across this one. I'm not sure how you came to a Delete decision here. It doesn't seem to be the consensus point of view of the participants. Thanks for any explanation you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, that one required some careful reading of the participants' discussion points since a couple of them argued against their own "keep"s. The nominator (who was not identified as a sock at close) wanted to delete based on NCORP. Oaktree voted! delete based on it being a PR piece without RS. Teratix voted! keep feeling two sources were RS (although one was shown to be a blog) but they also wanted a complete rewrite (which might be considered a TNT vote!) The next two, Chekidalum and X, said the article passed NCORP. However, X also suggested the article should never have been put in mainspace.(Essentially a draftify or TNT vote!) HighKing wrote Keep but then argued that the article failed NCORP and needed to be deleted unless completely rewritten as a different topic. IMO, the majority consensus based on editors' arguments was the article should be removed for failing NCORP and/or needing a complete rewrite. I probably should have added a line about welcoming draftify requests from anyone.


 * It was definitely an "interpretive" decision based on the discussion points -- and knowing their was no chance to relist for further discussion. I have no problem if either of you wants to reverse my decision and re-open the AFD for a fourth relist or to even change my close. Just let me know. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Number 57, on re-assessment, I now see that the article clearly was recreated by a sock, too. (see Sockpuppet investigations/WikiAddict81/Archive about the original Vecteezy article creator) Account is blocked and reported to SPI. It should have been a WP:G5 from the get-go. Thanks for the heads-up on the sock. Do you think I should edit the AFD or redo the deletion to reflect that? — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking for help
Hi you were listed as the contact for admin removal of my recently submitted page: Alley of the Dolls (band). This is my first time creating a new page so I apologize for any noob mistakes in creating but it seemed like I had answered every question brought up by other admins and contributors and supplied literally dozens of references and got nowhere. This is a band I have a lot of knowledge of, and I am really passionate about getting live on Wiki. They absolutely ARE real and established albeit not currently in the hot 100! Any advise you give to restart the page from a position that wont immediately have it pulled again would be appreciated. MusicForeverYours (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have recreated the deleted article at Draft:Alley of the Dolls (band) where it can be edited for improvement. I suggest that you review the comments made at Articles for deletion/Alley of the Dolls (band) by the discussion participants (they are all veteran WP editors). And review the links to the relevant guidelines. I saw that the issue revolved around a lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Please note that blogs, PR sites, marketing websites and sales websites are invalid as reliable sources. That lack of good sourcing is usual for a new band before it becomes established. Valid reliable sources take time to emerge. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Adamlampalo
User:Adamlampalo was created by a sock of an LTA, as recognized at Special:CentralAuth/Adamlampalo. Therefore, it is eligible for G5 even if it was created before the sock itself was blocked. Air on White (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. Here's the actual link that mentions the LTA at . It's probably helpful to point to that link in your edit summary when G5 tagging an account blocked for WP:NOTHERE or vandalism, etc. Cheers! — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Graham Beards
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana · Mets501 · Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana · Warofdreams



Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news
 * The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
 * The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous
 * WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace citation needed tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Recreating TV3 Group (Baltics)
Hello - I don't know the circumstances of your previous deletion of the article TV3 Group (Baltics), but I plan to create an article with that name containing the information currently displayed at the disambiguation page Channel_3.

The content will be as follows:

TV3 Group (Baltics) is a pan-Baltic commercial broadcasting company owned by Providence Equity Partners through Bitė Group in Lithuania, previously a part of Viasat operations
 * TV3 (Estonia)
 * TV3 (Latvia)
 * TV3 (Lithuania)

If this is in any way problematic, please let me know. Thank you. Coining (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Edwin L. Z'berg
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Edwin L. Z'berg, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20CactusWriter&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1230832759 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edwin_L._Z%27berg&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1230832759%7CEdwin%20L.%20Z'berg%5D%5D Ask for help])

Editor experience invitation
Hi CactusWriter :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Overrided AFD to deletion
Hi @CactusWriter,

From this log, it shows you deleted the page Chef Chioma while it's undergoing a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Chef Chioma. Please undelete the page for the discussion, which is still highly going to be deleted continue (it's a formal process though). If not, undelete the page and close the discussion when due or since consensus is met. Cheers! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, SafariScribe. The AFD discussion can be closed early if the article has been concurrently deleted by Speedy Deletion -- it does not require the continued formal process. See WP:EARLY. The article was tagged properly as WP:G4 because it had been previously deleted a few weeks ago per AFD discussion at Articles for deletion/Chioma Rowland. I concurred and deleted the article. The AFD is now closed. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That was what I needed. Thanks for the closing. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 18:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. For future reference, know that if you had wanted, you could have closed the AFD yourself (Wp:NACD) by just mentioning my name and the reason for speedy deletion in the result. Best —  Cactus Writer (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of translations of The Lord of the Rings
Hi CactusWriter

Just wanted to raise a query your close at the AFD here. The list was split out from the associated article (now at the title Translating The Lord of the Rings. As such, the prior status quo was that the two pages were in the same location, with the prose and list both in the same place. The split was never discussed and was clearly controversial and disputed, therefore the default status quo should have been to revert to it. There were many contributors to the above discussion who favoured reverting back to that prior status quo, and I think that re-merging should have been the outcome of the discussion. I don't see a strong consensus for retaining the split specifically, there was no consensus in participants on that question, and many editors were simply commenting on the notability of such a list overall rather than the merits of a split. Please could you revisit the close? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Amakuru. I'll be happy to review my close of that discussion with you. First, the AFD was based solely on an alleged lack of notability of the list to exist on its own as a "stand-alone list" (WP:LISTN). Therefore the vast majority of the discussion addressed that issue -- with most participants "commenting on the notability" -- as one would expect for a discussion about notability. In the end, the argument "to keep" certainly outweighed the argument "to delete." As noted in my close, a merge was suggested by several of the participants, including two editors giving it as a second option after their "keep" positions. (And one editor oddly being indifferent as to either deleting or merging.) Which tipped the scales of the close on the side of keeping the stand-alone list. Only three editors spoke to merging "back," with one of them mentioning an undiscussed split. However, there was no evidence that it was "clearly controversial and disputed" as you suggest -- especially since the consensus showed that the editors were fine with a stand-alone list. If you believe the original split was controversial, and it needs to be discussed, is there any reason that you can't create a discussion for that purpose now? — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Elli · HouseBlaster · Pickersgill-Cunliffe
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Brianga · De728631 · Georgewilliamherbert · Hyacinth (deceased) · ProveIt · The Night Watch

Technical news
 * Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Please compare a new page to a G5-deleted page
Hello CactusWriter. Aleksandar Sasha Trajkovski was recently created. Previously, there were deletions of Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski, and one of them was yours -- a G5 (log). The impetus to create pages on these topics on Wikipedia comes from a promotional scheme described in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149. The account was globally locked. An SPI had found socks. The new Trajkovski article is not identical to Draft:Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski which is where the problem was detected at the time, but all of the references seem the same, from memory (a subset is included), the content is similar, and I think that this, together with evident WP:GAMENAME (Saša/Sasha) passes the duck test. Sincerely —Alalch E. 11:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Alalch E. I agree. A comparison of the new article with the previous pages shows duplicated language. Because it was created by an SPA account, I've blocked the account on the WP:DUCK behavior and filed an SPI report. After a clerk has reviewed and filed the report, the page can be speedy deleted as a G5. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)