Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Consulate General of France, Miami 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/Consulate General of France, Miami 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.

AusLondonder (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1.
Message added 07:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, just pinging in case you have anything else to add to the comments there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a spambot, see [1], probably will bring up more. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 18:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seawolf35 they're on a proxy. If there are more accounts (which wouldn't surprise me in the least) they must be on different proxies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently ran across several articles that were both edited by or created by a member of the public relations team for a large company that include both company pages for their own company, their clients they have worked for, as well as the biographies for their bosses.

I know we have the paid@wiki email address we can report the undisclosed paid editing violation to but my concern lies with what to do about the articles in question since they read like advertisements, albeit somewhat well sourced. Or I guess a more accurate question would be how to properly nominate an article for deletion that has been created/edited by paid editors without 'outing' the editors. Do I report to paid and then wait to see if they get blocked, and only then nominate per the above since it would not be considered outing (I think)?

I'm just trying to see what the normal procedure is without compromising anyone's info or breaking a rule.

I appreciate any advice you can give or a push in the right direction you can provide, and thank you in advance.

Awshort (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Awshort the short answer is it depends. The longer answer is: deal with the on-wiki stuff on-wiki—if an article subject isn't notable or the article is promotional, consider CSD/PROD/AfD as usual; if an editor is being disruptive (eg they're only here to promote something), you can report them to the appropriate noticeboard. If you need off-wiki evidence to make your case for deletion/sanctions, that's when you should email the "paid" queue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

Upon recommendation from WP:AN to consult a CheckUser, I figured I'd ask if you could take a look here and determine whether a rangeblock would be an appropriate course of action. With over 80 socks in the past five years, it's becoming clear that mere SPI blocks aren't enough to deal with this sockmaster. The Kip 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip it seems my friend Drmies has already handled it. The most recent socks were all on a single IP, which Drmies has hard-blocked for a while. Feel free to ping me (or Drmies if he's willing) if they get round that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, much appreciated - wasn't aware of that. The Kip 20:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm not sure exactly who we're talking about but I wouldn't comment on IPs anyway. ;) Harry, if we're going to call each other friends, it seems fitting that I'd hit you up on Facebook. I need more Brits among my friends anyway! Drmies (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mitch, my apologies if you may not have all the answers or don't specialize in music, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask and maybe you might redirect me somewhere for help.

1. I wanted to ask if it was possible for a remix to have a standalone article? I have seen a lot of remixes that did extremely well in the charts, certifications, awards and obviously have news coverage so I was just wondering since I never came across one.
2. How does one go about creating a WikiProject page for an artist, do I keep it in my user/draft til it's complete or not because if it was an article I could probably create a stub, so how does it work?
3. What are the requirements for creating a album discography article?

dxneo (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo sorry, not my area of expertise. Ask me about bridges or old buildings and I can tell you all you need to know but I don't know much about music articles. I think a remix can/should have its own article when it gets to the point that it overwhelms the article on the original and there's enough to say about it that's different from the original. I would think you'd need quite a few editors interested in writing articles (and quite a few articles that would be in-scope) for a wikiproject. I have no idea about discographies. I know MaranoFan has a lot of experience writing those sorts of articles and might have some useful advice. Otherwise, you could ask at a wikiproject talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]