User talk:Habst

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Request for page creations

[edit]

May i kindly request page creations for Raleigh Geiger and Laurie Gomez Henes? Geiger was the coach of the NC State XC and TF teams for decades. Henes is the current coach at NC State. Both have more than enough accolades to qualify as important.


I would attempt to start the pages but their legacies are too daunting.


Thank you. CannisRoofus (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CannisRoofus, I appreciate the request but have been kind of busy lately. If you make a draft, I'd be happy to review / approve it, though. --Habst (talk) Habst (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Habst, i completely understand. it looks like you've been super busy. i'll try to cobble together a draft of the pages in the next few weeks and pass them along for review. Thank you

CannisRoofus (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your unfailing diplomacy and courtesy at AfD against all odds! Ingratis (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Habst (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Mahmoud Ghassab

[edit]

Where is he mentioned in https://www.newspapers.com/article/ventura-county-star-ferndale-farewell-jo/166214997/ ? LibStar (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LibStar, he's mentioned by name at the end of the article. With a WP:newspapers.com account you can do a text search of clippings.
Speaking of Ghassab, I think you are doing too many PRODs in too short time -- 55 of them in the last five days by my count. The issue with doing that many so quickly is it takes time to check for sources for each one so some might slip through the cracks. --Habst (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you have 7 days to decline each prod. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't seem to get involve in non-athletics sportspeople. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, there have been 65+ PRODs by you in the last seven days. That would be impossible for any one person to verify each of those in only seven days. I would focus on other topics as well, but there are too many for me to do that. Why not limit to only a few per day? --Habst (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally 100s if not 1000s of prods and 1000s of AfDs a week. You seem to be picking on me. I will continue to prod as I see fit, you are welcome to deprod. You have a full 7 days to act. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also prod organizations, should I stop doing that too? You have no interest in non-athletics sportspeople or organizations. I have never seen you deprod those. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, I disagree with many of those PRODs, but you are the one that came to my talk page so I was responding to what I noticed as an uptick mostly from you. And I do occasionally deprod other subjects, for example at Special:Diff/1251323326. But when there are so many and they're all time-limited, I have to focus on the areas I'm more knowledgeable about. At some point, one person making hundreds of PRODs in a few weeks becomes too much for the community to verify. --Habst (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You remind me of an editor who wanted AfDs to be 2 weeks. You have never deprodded or participated in an AfD I've nominated for a non-athletics sportsperson, organisation, or other topics I regularly nominate like people , bilateral relations and embassies. I will continue to nominate, you have not dissuaded me. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the issue with AfDs being two weeks? Anyways, you're free to continue, I'm just letting you know that many of your PRODs will be contested because it's unlikely that someone can do a thorough source search on that many in such a short timeframe. --Habst (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally 100s if not 1000s of prods and 1000s of AfDs a week. You basically want this established process to stop for your convenience. Only a fraction of my prods are athletics people which seems the sole topic you're interested in. Are you going to comment on the AfD for a university architecture school I nominated today? Please do. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, the process should be followed efficiently and too many PRODs that can be contested with a thorough search can jeopardize that. I might disagree with your mentioned nomination as well, my editing time is limited so I focus on what I know most about given the volume of time-sensitive tasks. --Habst (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michael Johnson (sprinter) has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

Category:Michael Johnson (sprinter) has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NEXIST

[edit]

As ridiculous as many of these Olympian AFDs may be, personally, I'd suggest to try to avoid making NEXIST "keep" arguments for all of them, especially ones where nothing of any substance can be found (e.g. Lê Quang Khải or Farouk Ahmed Sayed). For ones like Mohamed Ould Khalifa, where there's some coverage we can point to, or if they have major accomplishments (e.g. multi-time Olympics with medals at major competitions), it could be warranted, but all I can say is that there's many editors who don't like others !voting "keep" without SIGCOV; I was once brought to ANI over doing the same (here, although it was in part due to civility as well as casting "keep" comments w/o sigcov). Just a suggestion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11, thank you for the comment. I hear you and I'll take that into consideration. --Habst (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to give another reminder that its probably best to focus on ones that have some level of coverage, rather than ones for which almost nothing can be found, like e.g. Raja Faradj Al-Shalawi – There's a not insignificant number of users who strongly dislike "keep" votes without SIGCOV. Remember that if they're redirected they can be brought back when SIGCOV is found; it might be useful for us to start contacting newspapers, Olympic committees, etc. to see if they're aware of SIGCOV on the athletes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11, thank you for the reminder. OK, I will not !vote keep on subjects with only the usual World Athletics / Tilastopaja / Olympedia sources, unless the WA/Tilastopaja list other non-one-time Olympic accomplishments or Olympedia has a bio written. I agree with you about contacting papers – maybe there should be an extra category for the Sports Cleanup Contest for converting articles that were soft-deleted or redirected with new SIGCOV --Habst (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter update

[edit]

Hey, just to let you know the |WD= param has been deprecated from {{ill}} in favour standardising links across the board to |qid=. You have a few pages that I cannot edit to swap the parameter name. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, thanks for letting me know about this. Makes sense, fixed. --Habst (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual admiration

[edit]

Thank you for your compliment at the recent AfD. I, too, admire your efforts at improving many sports articles -- even if much of your recent work is heavily focused on athletes competing for the evil empire in Columbus. Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62, thanks for reaching out and the same to you! --Habst (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep?

[edit]

Hi! Thanks, as always, for your detailed insight on the AfDs. If I may make one suggestion - and this is as a fellow editor, zero to do with being an admin and closer of some of these. I think it's time to retire the procedural case argument. While you're right that N:EXIST is the basis for an argument to keep, I don't think any of these has been closed procedurally. You and others make your excellent cases and that's how they're closed. Am I missing something in your PKeep? Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 03:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, sorry for the delayed response, I was in a country where Wikipedia was blocked but am more available now. I hear you and understand what you're saying. I was referring to a similar case from last year where 109 PRODs were procedurally kept on similar grounds, but I acknowledge that PRODs and AfDs are different and the recent AfD volume has been less than the Seefooddiet PROD volume. I can see that the nominator in all my PKeep cases has been advised by an admin to slow down the rate of AfDs which I appreciate, and I likewise appreciate you reaching out as well. I won't make that argument again unless the volume is similar to the Seefooddiet case (i.e. hundreds in a few hours). --Habst (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and then I was offline for a while. No worries at all.
I think volume: whether a bundle or quantity we as a community can't keep up with is different. I've definitely closed some bundles as PKeep/Trainwreck because there is no path forward in that discussion.
That said, I also agree with the comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Emil_Kalous that we need a better solution since these discussions are wasting significant community time as all of you (whether or not you actually agree on retention) spend significant amount of time digging for the data behind your !votes and it's not sustainable given the quantity of stubs Lugnuts created. Have a good day and safe travels. Star Mississippi 14:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's May 2025 edit-a-thon

[edit]

Hello Habst: WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in May 2025!

Running from May 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a women's rights activist? Go for it. An Olympian gold medallist? Absolutely. A famous painting by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts. We hope to see you there!

(You are receiving this message as you are on the Women in Green mailing list. If you wish to opt out of receiving future messages, feel free to remove yourself from the list.) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for saving Francisco Guzmán (shot putter) from the chopping block. In doing so, you kept my 0% deletion ratio alive. I'm currently 814–0, and aiming for the rare 1,000–0. (I just noticed that you are currently 644–0... not bad).

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! That was a fun one to research, and interesting because it was another case where the name in SIGCOV ("Frank") wasn't the name on Wikipedia. Appreciate your work here. --Habst (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

[edit]

Hello, Habst. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! JensonSL (SilverLocust) 17:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Variation

[edit]

Added a variation Tennis Ball throw https://media.specialolympics.org/resources/sports-essentials/sport-rules/Sports-Essentials-Athletics-Rules-2024.pdf?_gl=1*bcpu1x*_gcl_au*Mjk1MTY5NTMuMTc0NDI1MjA4MQ..*_ga*MTA2Mzc3NDg2LjE3NDQyNTIwODE.*_ga_KTMLJ70DKD*MTc0NDI1MjA4MS4xLjEuMTc0NDI1MjA4NC41Ny4wLjA. EliG233 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EliG233, thank you for your sourced contributions to Softball throw#Variations! I agree that's worth including. I fixed the grammar and used {{cite web}} for the source. Happy editing! --Habst (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you would the top part be edited also just wondering so it’s less confusing to readers it does mention that but adding variations to it is better EliG233 (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EliG233 You're right, the information is duplicated in the top and in the "Variations" section. I moved all of the tennis ball info into the "Variations" section and renamed it "modern variations" to be less confusing. Thanks! --Habst (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Always impressed by the fantastic work you do in finding sources for obscure athletes and rescuing them from deletion. So here's a barnstar! BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OCR

[edit]

The discussion is closed, and this was off topic anyway, but you said:

I have the full text of the study cited, and it seems to say the opposite? ... Because a digit is considered a non-word, this would indicate a lot more word errors such as the subject's name.

There is a misunderstanding here. A real word error is an error where the OCR gives a real word that is not the correct word. Their example is "hear" instead of "bear". The reason these are higher than non word errors is exactly because of what I said OCR software is doing: it looks at the whole word shape. It also uses dictionaries. So if you have an elided word that should be bear, the software may not notice the elision under the b, because it looks like the valid word, hear. However if you had a word like betwixt with the same elision, hetwixt would be meaningless, so the software will probably get that one right, rather than presenting the non word, hetwixt. Names, for this purpose, are real words. Dictionaries used by OCR would generally contain names as "real words". Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy, thanks. I think that there are two assumptions I would disagree with: one, that names like "Ali Khamis Rashid Al-Neyadi" or their parts would be in the word dataset; and two, that none of those component words could be misinterpreted as another word if elided. I think we would need an Arabic language expert to say for sure. --Habst (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Serrano AfD - Regarding JoelleJay's response

[edit]

Hello! I'm sorry if they might insult you on sportspeople-related AfD nominations, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Serrano. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Habst (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi Habst. Thank you for your work on Al Mamari. Another editor, Fade258, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank You for your contribution.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Fade258}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Fade258 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I only created a redirect in 2023, it was User:Abu Isa who converted it to a set index page yesterday here: Special:Diff/1287634499. --Habst (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, @Habst! :D — Abu Isa🤔 (talk) Abu Isa (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ATH Euro Club

[edit]

Hello. i have questions about European Champion Clubs Cup (athletics)

1- Will these competitions no longer be held from 2019 onwards? Has it been cancelled altogether?

2- Where can I find the full results of these competitions? I searched a lot. I couldn't find anything.

2006 European Champion Clubs Cup - Can you create articles for all years?

http://www.gbrathletics.com/ic/ech.htm - incomplete

https://www.tilastopaja.eu/beta/results/12873979 - need to login

https://www.tilastopaja.eu/beta/users/join.php - Unfortunately registration is disabled at this time.

3- I tried to become a member but it was not possible. Are you a member? Are there results from all years now? What is the reason why the competitions are no longer held?

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmaaxw (talk • contribs)

Hi User:Cmaaxw, thanks for getting in touch. I don't know the current status of the European Champion Clubs Cup for athletics. It seems like it stopped after 2019. If you can find a source saying it's been cancelled, please add it to the article.
I also don't think that there's a source for full results anywhere, you would have to check local newspapers or contact European Athletics. gbrathletics has all medalists until about 2007.
I don't really have the bandwidth to create articles for each year right now, but if you create them as drafts, post them here and I can approve them.
I am a Tilastopaja member, I have it for free through WP:Tilastopaja but you need an account at least 6 months old with 500 edits to apply for that. The Tilastopaja results have every year from 2005 to 2019 but they vary a lot, sometimes they are nearly complete but sometimes only a few winners. Let me know any specific year and I can send you the results. --Habst (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Diamond League Shanghai

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Diamond League Shanghai indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Brandon Downes (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandon Downes Thanks, I think these should be moved via WP:CfD/S (under WP:Twinkle menu XfD -> CfD/S) in the future, that way the Wikidata item gets moved as well. But I did it manually for now to Category:Shanghai Diamond League so it's OK this time --Habst (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agh apologies I did tag you over on discord asking which one would be best but deleted after I thought I had found the correct one, looks like I didnt but thank you. Brandon Downes (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muckle

[edit]

Working on the Article called Muckle Game I know some information on it EliG233 (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EliG233, OK, great, I see it at Draft:Muckle (game). I think you should title the article "Muckleball" because that's the most common name for it I see in sources.
I think it needs a few more sources, maybe this is the same thing? "Boost For the Muckle Ball Game at McPherson Next Monday--It's a Canny Scheme." This seems like a good source also: [1] --Habst (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you rename it don’t know how to EliG233 (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And rename the tag game of it EliG233 (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, in the future you can rename pages at Special:MovePage like this: Special:MovePage/Draft:Muckleball. --Habst (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I didn’t know how EliG233 (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been trying to improve it as well EliG233 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence is there that [2] is actually about the same thing, and not e.g. the name for some local baseball derby / bowl type game? Never mind this having nothing directly really to do with the game, and just describing an actual type of bullying. Do you just look at similar words? I mean, you have encouraged EliG to add that source to the article[3], which will probably make it only more likely to be deleted as a poorly written attempt at an article, and will definitely not help to keep it, to the consternation of EliG who ony followed expert advice here. Fram (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, thanks for your help -- it's a draft so I agree we should determine if it's notable by finding sources. Based on the sources so far it seems like the article should definitely be about the way this game was used to bully marginalized people rather than the game itself, because that's how it was most often described in sources. I didn't advise EliG233 to add the Salina Evening Journal article to the draft yet, I only asked if it referred to the same concept which I'm not as equipped to answer as EliG233 is because I had not heard of this game before. --Habst (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that either of the two sources are about this game and not just things sharing a name. There is no evidence so far that we should have this article at all, never mind what it should be about. Fram (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, there might be several notable games with that name, but if the games are related typically an article's job would be to make those distinctions. I have no idea about the Salina Evening Journal source, and I agree it shouldn't be in a submitted draft until it can be explained. However the Minneapolis Star source is clearly related to the draft to the extent that the game is explained there. Like I said, I think there is a better case that this game is notable if framed in the context of LGBTQ rights in the United States rather than only as a game based on the sources I have found so far. --Habst (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look under Street Football (American) variations EliG233 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EliG233, I'm not familiar with these types of games so I'm not sure I am equipped to contribute further. I could review a draft once it is ready, though. --Habst (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks review it see if it’s ready EliG233 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't think it's ready yet, finding a few more sources would help. Specifically, finding a source that explains the different names of the game and explaining how it was used as a bullying practice (if those games are the same) would help. --Habst (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Because your post is a textbook example of it. No idea how you adequately "could review a draft once it is ready" frankly. Fram (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, where is the original research? The Minneapolis Star piece discusses the game in the context of LGBTQ rights in the United States. I said the game could be notable in that context. Also, we're discussing this in user space and I've never even contributed to the draft in question, let alone in mainspace where those P&G would apply. --Habst (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the sentence where if you look at EliG233 (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses "a" game (well, no, a bullying practice) where no ball, scoring, ... is involved, and which isn't called muckleball. And you believe that this could be included in the article about muckleball, and that you are qualified to review such an article. Fram (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a bullying practice. There is no article to speak of yet; part of the drafting process is always to determine the scope of the subject. I can tell when a draft isn't ready, as is the case now. --Habst (talk) Habst (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will wait then EliG233 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a couple of days how do I know if it’s ready EliG233 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Pacák deletion discussion with FOARP

[edit]

I appreciate the work that you have been doing and the stances that you have been taking in the Karel Pacák article deletions discussion. As you can see with User Contributions page, as well as with the User Contributions page of my previous account, I have been editing on Wikipedia for quite some time, and the vast majority of my work has been regarding the sport of gymnastics. I recently got an email that my name was mentioned in an article deletion discussion for Svatopluk Svoboda. I joined that discussion because it pertains to work that I have been doing directly and about which I have a good degree of familiarity. That deletion discussion might interest you. Any feedback (or even help) you could give regarding those deletion discussions would be very much appreciated. Although there are many points to be made (which I have made on that deletion discussion), the prime points I would make is that as far as the actual data is concerned on the scores and medals rewarded for the pre-WWI area of the sport, all known major sources (discussed therein) are in complete agreement of the data, when said data exists, and this has been the case for over 15 years of online history. Additionally, I find it extremely confusing that FOARP, on the one hand, uses official publications by the FIG as well as Gymnastics-History.com as sources to argue for the minimizations/redirections/deletion of numerous sports bios, at the same time as using those sources to further build select articles. What I think FOARP fails to realize is that they opened the door for these sources. There are numerous other truths, but I think that this inconsistency from an administrator is key to the issue. I have articulated much more on the Svoboda deletion discussion and I would really appreciate it if you looked into that.QuakerIlK (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging FOARP since you have chosen to discuss them here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As if my having mentioned them 3 times in Wikified fashion wouldn't have generated an email to that user? QuakerIlK (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, FOARP should have already been pinged because when you wikilink a name and include a signature in the same edit, that automatically generates a ping. --Habst (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, pings can be a dark art. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I don't think anything here requires a response - "opening the door" isn't a thing. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuakerIlK, thank you for the message. I will take a look at the AfD. --Habst (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also say I think it would be best if we de-personalize as much of these conversations as we can and try to discuss the arguments without discussing the users when possible. --Habst (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate anything that appears to be a direction away from any sort of Ad Hominem, yes. I just personally think it makes more sense and is more helpful and clarifying to be complete with information and to articulate particulars that matter. Additionally, whereas Administrators are concerned, issues of power and responsibility come to the fore even moreso.QuakerIlK (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I looked at the Svoboda AfD and I appreciate your arguments, but I just don't have enough experience with gymnastics articles to opine on it in any meaningful way. The only thing I can say is that the amount of effort to find sources on pre-Internet athletes seems vastly underestimated in that AfD to me. --Habst (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to say "...the amount of effort [it takes] to find sources on pre-Internet athletes seems vastly underestimated...". QuakerIlK (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuakerIlK Yes. Habst (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just got through reading the article and deletion discussion for Karel Pacák, and I was in the process of creating a contribution to the discussion, but discovered that to be an impossibility as the article was deleted a 4 minutes ago from the very time I started typing this response, now. I can only say, after the fact, that it does not appear to me that Karel Pacák would rise to the level of notability based just upon his accomplishments, however I would want to research more before making any assumptions. I do have some familiarity with the Czech National Archives because of the work that I do, so that could have possibly helped. Unfortunately, the World Athletics Championships didn't start until the 1970s, so, in light of that, I wouldn't know where to look for Pacák's international accomplishments.QuakerIlK (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]