User talk:Rusalkii

Archives

2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2025: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 700 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, I'm sorry to bother you with this again but I would like to be double checked here. I reverted an edit that removed "notable residents" from this article Hiram Clarke, Houston, because the reason given for removal was that they didn't have a linked article. Each was accompanied by a citation. Was I in the wrong here? --S1mply.dogmom (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article is the usual criteria, yeah. Keeps us from-relitigating whether X or Y is notable or not, when we already have such a process for articles, and allows people to learn more about them than just the brief blurb the list allows. Rusalkii (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you! S1mply.dogmom (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kindly can you give me your email I would send you a question and know your idea about person Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any reason why you can't ask me publicly? I prefer to have these kinds of discussions on my talk page. Rusalkii (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes please Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can email me using the "email user" button in the left sidebar. If I end up deciding I do not think the conversation should be conducted by email, I will let you know here and you can decide if you prefer to continue. Rusalkii (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the option, and my email is already confirmed here. Could you please send me an email or let me know how you'd prefer to receive the details? Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the button at ? Rusalkii (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can't see the Button at side bar Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's very weird. I generally prefer to keep my email private without a good reason. Could you please explain at in general terms what the issue is, or at least why the issue can't be discussed in public? Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I completely understand and respect your preference for privacy. I'm happy to clarify the matter here in general terms.

The issue relates to a page draft that was previously declined based on concerns of “self-promotion,” despite the article being neutrally written and supported by reputable sources in multiple languages. I was hoping to understand more about the specific criteria that led to that decision, and whether there might be a way to revisit or improve the draft for reconsideration.  

If there's a more suitable channel you'd prefer for a deeper discussion, I'm happy to follow your guidance.

Thanks again for your time and attention Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I kindly requested your email is because subject’s name is currently restricted on the platform, which means I’m unable to create the page or even mention the sources directly within the draft interface. Since only administrators can override such limitations, I hoped you might be willing to take a quick look via email to fairly assess the credibility and neutrality of the material.  

Of course, I fully respect your desire to keep your contact details private, and I understand completely if that’s your final preference. I’m simply trying to find a constructive path forward within the current constraints Ahmedhamou (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what your relationship is with the original author of the draft? Without knowing what the article is, I can give you some very general advice. Wikipedia has quite strict conflict of interest guidelines, which you can review in brief here and in more depth here. In short, if content was written by someone being paid for it, who has not disclosed, even if it genuinely is neutral, that is against our policy and will be looked upon quite negatively by reviewers. Rusalkii (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I think you should be able to email my by clicking Special:Email/Rusalkii, and if that doesn't work then I am now even more confused what your email situation is. (Though I'm logging off for the night, so don't expect a prompt reply). Rusalkii (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ahmedhamou (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and for outlining the relevant guidelines.

To clarify, I’m not being paid for this, nor do I have any formal or financial relationship with the subject of the draft. My involvement comes from a genuine interest in ensuring that notable individuals—particularly those with significant cultural contributions across countries—are represented fairly and factually on the platform.

I understand and respect Wikipedia’s policies regarding conflict of interest, and I’ve done my best to follow both the letter and spirit of those rules. The draft was carefully written with neutral language, supported by independent and reputable sources. If there's any portion that seems problematic, I would genuinely appreciate feedback so I can revise accordingly.

I’m happy to engage in a transparent and constructive way to make sure the content aligns fully with community standards. Thank you again for your time and guidance. Ahmedhamou (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: This now-blocked account is a relentless self-promoting WP:LTA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sort of figure. How much time do people even have, goodness. Rusalkii (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie found another one for you. Hamouahmed9 just emailed me. Rusalkii (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to your attention a page that, in my view, does not meet the notability standards expected on the platform. The content relies primarily on local sources, and several of the external references are either non-functional or no longer accessible. Additionally, the subject appears to be of limited local relevance and lacks broader significance or coverage.In light of these concerns, I kindly request that you consider deleting the page to maintain the overall quality and notability of the site. Jenanali9 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of policy, I cannot unilaterally delete pages, and neither can any other admin. If you've review the notability guideline and the guidelines for people, and are convinced it doesn't pass, you can nominate it for deletion yourself. See WP:GDBN; make sure to explain how you looked for sources and why you think the sources you've found don't satisfy the notability criteria. Rusalkii (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same sock as above; sour grapes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ,

In regard to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 23#High School Musical: Status Quo, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30#Rice Purity Test, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Karakasa, etc.:

The plain soft redirect template should not be used in the mainspace (WP:SOFTSP). There are no current invocations of the template in the mainspace (bar one that is temprorary as it is currently under discussion). In all of my years frequenting redirects for discussion, I have never seen the community actively approve a soft redirect to a local target (though I suppose such a consensus is possible but would likely lead to a larger discussion).

I generally monitor these through a pseudo-category, proceeding to fix them as they arise. I noticed a pattern developing as laid out above, so I figured I would leave this friendly note (to hopefully stave off future maintenance).

Warmest regards,
— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I suspect what happened is that I misinterpreted the "soft" checkbox in the XfD closer script - when marking it for deletion it just means "minimally attended, do not treat as a proper consensus", so I assumed it meant the same here. I definitely didn't do that on purpose. I will avoid that checkbox in the future, which I hope should fix this. Rusalkii (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a mistake. Feel free to delete it. Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (For future context, this is about the redirect Ernesto Mejía Pérez). Rusalkii (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	June 2025 AfC backlog drive award
	Thank you Rusalkii for participating in the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• July 9–15 - Call for candidates
• July 18–22 - Discussion phase
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

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) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up to my thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#h-Serial failed verification from dynamic IP-20250703032600

This editor is still at it. Here's a nonsense source just tacked on to Jewel Thais-Williams: [1] And here's one on Douglas Loeffler: [2] To my eyes it doesn't look like they noticed their previous block. Would you mind blocking again? Thanks. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be at my computer until tomorrow, if it's urgent I recommend asking again at ANI or perhaps AIV (emphasize the continued behavior after block). Otherwise I'll look tomorrow. Rusalkii (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nohomersryan I have blocked the /64 for six months, since they had a one month block expire in April for the same behavior and it doesn't look like there's much collateral damage there. If you see any further issue on other IPs let me know. Rusalkii (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Larries/GA1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I like to create a new page How can I do that --Bala Sugan B 007 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you've created and submitted a draft before, Draft:Clumps Bee, but it was deleted for being too promotional. It's usually not a good idea to try to create an article about something you have a conflict of interest with, such as your company or something you're being paid for. However, if you do want to do that, you were on the right track. Create a draft again using the same process, but make sure to write neutrally and following what independent sources, not related to the subject in any way, say about the subject. Help:Your first article has some further advice. Rusalkii (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Lionsgate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10 § Lionsgate until a consensus is reached.

(Courtesy notification to closer of prior RFD for Lionsgate.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thank you for reviewing my draft. Draft:Tom Almeida I would like to kindly help me make it match the requeriments so it can be accepted. Tomalmeidapiano (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the review notice said, you'll need to find a couple published sources with independent (not by this person, their employers, etc) significant (i.e. a couple paragraphs about this person) coverage. Newspaper articles or books are usually the best bet for this sort of thing. Searching google news and google books is usually a good first stop. Rusalkii (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Rusalkiii. I have reported them to UAA just in case. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's me, I made an account to see how things looked to new users. Thanks for keeping an eye out, though. Rusalkii (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, never mind then. There's an LTA impersonating admins and closing AfD discussions as no consensus, thought it was one of their accounts. There's also this guy. Glad to know there's nothing to worry about. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• July 23–29 – Voting phase
• July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have 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 approximately four 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 candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. 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) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rusalkii. In case you missed it, I replied at Talk:Bill Ackman#Changes to the lead. I hope you won't mind helping wrap things up there. Thanks! FMatPSCM (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Solapur Earthquake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Solapur Earthquake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]