User talk:Feline Frame-Up

User:Feline Frame-Up/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Feline Frame-Up/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Feline Frame-Up/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to 2025 Florida Turnpike crash. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is not sufficiently neutral. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop spamming links to this draft on random talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't "random" pages. My understanding is that when a new article is created, it's supposed to get linked to from other pages, including relevant talk pages. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't link articles from talk pages. You can link articles from other articles if they're relevant. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This article was already ready for publication. It had multiple reliable sources, and I labeled it as a stub. There is no legitimate reason for you to move it to the draft space. Please put it back as a regular article. I do not know how to do that. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Feline Frame-Up, voorts's reasons to move to draft space are noted in his initial notice, and I agree with them from just a cursory glance. You can submit the draft for review by clicking the "submit for review" button at the top of that page, though please note that it will likely be declined by whoever reviews it unless the reasons it was moved to draft are addressed. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 18:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I already submitted it. It said it can take 5 weeks.

This subject has gotten a huge amount of coverage, and even President Trump has commented on it.

I labeled it as a stub, and included multiple reliable sources.

This is huge.

It should be moved back to regular article space immediately.

Feline Frame-Up (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not move it yourself. Continuing to work on it as a draft will ensure that you can get it into a state that's suitable for mainspace. Moving it back without approval will likely cause it to get speedily deleted.

Best of luck with your work on the draft, you're taking on what's one of the hardest tasks on the site. I've been an active editor for almost a year and a half and haven't managed to write an article. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 18:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice.

And especially, thanks for your encouragement.

Feline Frame-Up (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that I don't think this event is notable. Getting newspaper coverage is not enough to make an event important enough to be incluced on Wikipedia as an article. This seems to be a highly politicized vehicle accident that is unlikely to receive any sustained press coverage. Just because Trump comments on something doesn't mean it should get an article on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Then please move it back to regular article space, and nominate it for deletion. Let everyone offer their opinion on whether or not it is notable. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Moving an article to draft when an editor thinks it isn't notable is a common way to avoid deletion. If you move it back to mainspace, I will nominate it for deletion. It's up to you how you'd like to proceed. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please move it back to main space, and nominate it for deletion. I would like to hear what many other editors think. Thank you. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to move it back because I don't think it should be in mainspace. You can do so if you would like to. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

How do I do that? Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

See H:MOVE. I don't think this is going to go how you think it will. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I just moved it back to regular space, and nominated it for deletion. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

And I've subsequently nominated it for speedy deletion. @Voorts, would G7 or A7 be applicable here? Since FFU PROD'ed their own article, the former seems to apply, but I'm not 100% sure. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither. The PROD was clearly mistaken since FFU wants a discussion. A7 applies only in very narrow circumstances and unorganized events aren't one of them. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, my mistake. Thank you for reverting. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to give some friendly advice, from similar deletion discussions I have seen the page will most likely be challenged according to whether the subject of the article will have a lasting effect. I suggest preparing a valid defense accordingly. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I am already prepared to defend its notability. I appreciate your advice. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I also noticed that you have elected to utilize proposed deletion, which is used for uncontroversial deletions and will automatically be deleted after 7 days with no discussion. If you would like a proper discussion to happen I can nominate it at WP:AfD — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, voorts has started the deletion discussion — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Florida Turnpike crash 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 Florida Turnpike crash 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) 19:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we can see what a lot of other people think regarding notability. I appreciate you taking my suggestion seriously. Thank you for doing that. It means a lot to me. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop editing the disambiguation page to add the name of the suspect in this event. Please review WP:BLPCRIME. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

voorts (talk/contributions) 03:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Which article(s)?

Feline Frame-Up (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Which article(s)?

Feline Frame-Up (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Which article(s)?

Feline Frame-Up (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I would say Voorts is referring to your edits at Erika Hilton. Your edits likely triggered a notice on editing articles related to living people. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I made exactly one edit at that article. The comment from the person who reverted my edit was "Unreliable source." That comment is a very legitimate reason for the reversion. Perhaps I or someone else will someday find a more reliable source, if the info is in fact true, which I think it is. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

As the above message states, this notice is not informing you that you did anything wrong. Rather, it is informing you that gender-related topics (as well as US politics and biographies of living persons) are designated contentious topics with different sets of rules around acceptable behaviour. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Feline Frame-Up. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 11:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Administrator use only:

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.