Hi Bd2412. I started working on Draft:Chenil Gallery before I noticed that you are the editor who started it. It's notable, so I'm going to chop some of the exhibitions as they are unsourced, and move the rest to article space. This gallery has been written about quite a bit, and I added several sources. I'll leave the chopped text on the talk page should you wish to track down sources. Thanks. --- Possibly☎ 04:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Thanks, I have put some drapes in the windows. Most of the unsourced content was actually drawn from other Wikipedia articles mentioning the gallery as a location for exhibitions by the artists so named, so it is generally also unsourced in those articles. Cheers! BD2412T 06:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
I want to highlight that I tried voicing my opinion to Bonadea on their talk page but they deleted it. It was about how they labeled a well reputed reliable source from Hindustan Times as a press release when it was a editorial independent and interviewed article written by a reputed journalist and this editor did not take in consideration that Hindustan Times adds a disclaimer to their press release articles and without any evidence they made a press release comment visible on the article and when confronted the messages were hidden and this makes me question all their edits which I want another mediator to do so too without being biased. Is this truly a fair space?
Positiveilluminati (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not see anything there that has not been adequetely addressed without the need for administrator intervention. BD2412T 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I know the HTTP RM has been open since May but I, for one, just saw it today in the backlog and !voted less than two hours before your close. Perhaps somewhat vainly, and probably in vain, I’m thinking my comment might influence others? I think I’m the first to bring up the idea of concision as COMMONNAME tie-breaker there. So, I’m requesting you revert your close but not relist to leave it in the backlog. Give it up a few more days to see if consensus might develop after all? Thanks. —В²C☎ 17:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
No amount of stewing in the backlog is likely to benefit a discussion that old. I would suggest waiting a few months and then proposing the move again, under a more thoroughly argued rationale. BD2412T 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd say my move rationale was already pretty thorough TBH, and the opposers were quite light on policy-based arguments. Some were just speculative, eg we should keep it, as i doubt anyone somewhat familiar with the topic will not know what the acronym means is just an assumption -- my own anecdote: I'm familiar with the protocols, and there are several I'd have to think twice to tell you what they stand for. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the burden for establishing clear consensus to move a page from a longstanding title is with the mover. Those opposing the move did enunciate policy-based rationales for their opposition. The existing title is not technically incorrect, and there is no way to find a consensus to move in this discussion. BD2412T 18:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Isn’t the burden carried by all those supporting, not just the mover? In any case SilkTork presented a comprehensive “all 5” CRITERIA argument and I focused on concision as well as common name like the others. Much of this was entirely ignored by opposition. Not even addressed, much less refuted. I urge you again to reconsider. At this point I think move review would make more sense than waiting to start a new one, but I’d much rather you simply revert yiur close to give others another chance to weigh in. Please? —В²C☎ 05:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The process was open for over six weeks, and was relisted twice (once by me). Any editor who was paying any attention whatsoever to RM already had the opporunity to weigh in. I reiterate, the current title is a permissible title. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but nothing approaching a consensus. I can't imagine Move Review will be very kind to an assertion that the discussion should have gone longer, or that consensus to move could be found on the face of it. BD2412T 06:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess we’ll find out. Not sure why you’re so resolute to leave it unresolved at no consensus. —В²C☎ 06:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No consensus was the resolution. BD2412T 06:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A no consensus close resolves nothing. Which of the two titles is preferable remains unresolved. If you think a “no consensus” close resolves a disagreement as well as finding consensus favoring one or the other, that explains why you see no value in reopening. In your mind it’s already resolved. That’s very disappointing. —В²C☎ 18:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
A no consensus close leaves the topic open to revisiting at a future time with new or previously unreviewed evidence. If the intended outcome is correct, eventually it will come about. You know that better than anyone. BD2412T 20:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it’s open to revisiting because it’s unresolved, and I know all too well how long it can take, often revisiting unnecessarily multiple times despite policy arguments clearly favoring the eventual consensus decision from the first RM, which is why I’m hoping we can give ourselves more of a chance to get this one right sooner rather than later. —В²C☎ 15:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The quality of the arguments with reference to evidence and policy was in favour of the move, but close as no consensus is not unacceptable as such a reading is arguable. Generally in such a balanced discussion, the closer is advised to explain their rationale in order to reassure people that they have understood the arguments and weighed them up - a casual and dismissive " there is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time" does not encourage others to have much confidence in the impartiality of the closer. A well written close does not necessarily mean that people will not object, but makes objections less likely.
Even though I feel the arguments in favour of a move are stronger, it would need a bold admin to close that way, and they would also likely receive objections, and be subject to a move review. This is one of those closes in which the closer is going to be damned whichever way they close. So, credit to BD2412 for stepping up to the challenge. Though, moving forward, a little more time spent on writing a balanced and explanatory close comment would be helpful to everyone. SilkTork (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@SilkTork: I agree only a bold closer would've closed as support, personally I only mind proposing the move again, under a more thoroughly argued rationale as I think the arguments for move were very thoroughly argued on policy and looked towards outside sourcing, whereas the arguments against were mostly perceived rebuttals of certain support arguments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It was a well argued and well evidenced move request. I am unsure how it could be bettered. I think BD2412 was simply responding off the cuff, along the lines of - "well that wording didn't quite work, try another way". I don't think they really meant that your argument was weak. And we all know that the outcome of any discussion can depend on who turns up, so trying again later, with or without new wording, could be successful. I think this move request is closed, and most other admins would have closed the same way that BD2412 has. It's time to move on. SilkTork (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: My response was to B2C, who seems to be under the impression that his late contribution to the discussion would, if given more time, have been uniquely persuasive to change the minds of previous opposers or draw in new supporters. BD2412T 17:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think it’s reasonably possible that with more time we might get more participation that may develop a consensus. RM is so overwhelming right now (as I’ve long predicted given our propensity for vague and contradictory guidelines) that many are getting overlooked. —В²C☎ 15:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I want to create a new draft that was previously deleted
Hi, I am new in English Wikipedia, I have written some biographies in Spanish Wikipedia, and I want to make the english version of all of them, one of the biographies I would like to create I noticed that in the past was previously deleted Draft:Benjamin Bocio, How should I proceed? It seems the last writer didn't respect the community guidelines. --Dominicanboy1 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The previous article was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Bocio. I have restored it to Draft:Benjamin Bocio, but it will require a thorough rewrite to be usable. I have move-locked the page so that admin review will be required before it can be restored to mainspace. BD2412T 20:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: Thank you very much, I am going to rewrite the article but I have a question, who is the admin? I would like to contact the admin for review once the article is finished.--Dominicanboy1 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no specific admin for review. One will pick up the task at that time - probably not me, as it would best be a review independent of the restoration. BD2412T 22:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello BD2412. I came across another of your drafts, added some sources and moved it to article space. The infobox image is by a painter: feel free to remove that or change anything you like, of course. The one thing I regret not including are images of his murals. The Tulsa Oklahoma one would have been great, for example. Thanks. --- Possibly☎ 01:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Thanks, that was one of my oldest outstanding drafts. If you're ever up for a challenge, I have 1,275 more underway, mostly on missing state supreme court justices, but with a smnattering of academics, artists, broad concept articles, a little bit of everything really. Cheers! BD2412T 02:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you sure you read through the discussion? What exactly merits a keep? JTtheOG (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Have you come to my talk page just to insult me? Yes, I am sure I read through the discussion. There is clear consensus that the subject playing a significant role in a significant sporting event merits keeping. I would suggest that you strike the first line of your comment here. BD2412T 05:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that was rude. I apologize. I sort of rushed into commenting something out of surprise. However, the subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NBASKETBALL as it currently stands and will most likely remain. If the significant event you're referring to is the BAL, saying he played a significant role in it is a bit of a stretch considering he averaged just 16 minutes per game, indicating he is most likely coming off the bench. He also averaged four points per game, meaning he scored less than five percent of his team's total points in the tournament. Even if he did play a significant role, his coverage in the sources given doesn't seem to satisfy the general notability guidelines, which, in my understanding, trump the sport-specific notability guidelines. JTtheOG (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Where in the AfD discussion did you raise these points? BD2412T 20:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@JTtheOG: Two points: firstly, GNG actually doesn't "trump" SNG. The wording at WP:N says "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" (emphasis mine). And secondly, all of these guidelines talk about presumption of notability. The key question which both GNG and SNGs attempt to answer is how likely do we think it is that sources exist covering the subject, even if they're offline or obscure. (Note that for African subjects, sources are far more likely to be offline in a print newspaper or other paper archive than in the West). In the end, consensus in the discussion is decided by who made the best policy points and whether they convinced anyone else of their points. In the case of this discussion, I'm afraid I don't think you did convince people, and this looks like a good close to me. — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I did not mention the specifics of his involvement in the tournament because it was clear that he failed both guidelines that I brought up in the discussion, as Extraordinary Writ and Alvaldi backed up in their comments. It's not necessary to dive into how important he was to the team because the competition is not established enough (just yet) to presume that all the participating players, or even all the members of the championship team, would have enough coverage to meet the GNG. As for the GNG trumping the SNG, that has long been a debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), with different prominent editors taking both sides. I understand that, as it stands, the wording Amakuru has provided is correct, but again it doesn't even matter in this case because he fails both. I've created dozens of African bios myself; I'm aware of your point, but at the same time that can't be used a crutch here when nothing indicates he would have that coverage to begin with. Both the creator of the article and myself have done searches in Arabic sources (عمر هشام is his name in the language), and what's listed in the discussion seems to be all that's been found, even though he has national team experience (probably also off the bench). JTtheOG (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru:@JTtheOG: The FAQ at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) makes it absolutely clear that 1. sport-specific notability guidelines do not supersede WP:GNG2. Passing a sports-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NBASKETBALL, is not an automatic notability pass and all subjects must pass GNG.
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline? A2: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
@Alvaldi: I've already cited the entry at WP:N which says in black and white as it's first bullet point that passing an SNG is sufficient to establish notability. WP:NSPORTS also says in bold text "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". So the guidelines are pretty clear on this point, and I assume that the FAQ you're quoting is just not fully accurate in that respect. — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: The FAQ, which you assume is not accurate, sits directly above your qouted paragraph on Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and is the the official FAQ of that guideline so it is pretty accurate in its message. You might also want to quote the whole paragraph. "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."Alvaldi (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has gone beyond what is appropriate for an individual admin talk page. I would suggest moving it to the talk page of the appropriate policy page. BD2412T 21:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Why are you linking circa to WT rather than unlinking or using the template {{circa}}? This is a common word most English speakers know. MOS:OVERLINKINGMB 06:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The links I have been fixing were already pointing to what is now a disambiguation page, Circa. Of the topics on that page, the Wiktionary link is the one that reflects the intended meaning. If this is overlinking, that was done by whoever linked the term in the first place; I found the incoming link situation as it was left by the editors who added these links to their respective articles. I am trying to disturb the status quo as little as possible by just exchanging the disambiguation link for a link to the intended meaning, rather than going on a mass-unlinking spree. BD2412T 06:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I realize you are fixing dabs, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider whether it should have been linked in the first place, and what the best solution is. I would have unlinked these and fixed the dab and the overlinking simultaneously. MB 06:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I find the quick one line at the top of the dab page makes more information available than wading through the wkt page which still doesn't explain it, I do like the temmplate with link, which at least does go straight to the wkt area showing the text Dave Rave (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
We don't link to disambiguation pages for such a purpose, though. We only intentionally link to a disambiguation page (following WP:INTDABLINK principles) when the purpose of the link is to discuss the ambiguity of the term itself. BD2412T 23:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Wellertalk 15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I have addressed this. BD2412T 00:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I was going to recreate the Vaush page and saw the message:
A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
You were the most recent person on the list so I thought I would message you. I'm not sure what the policy is for recreating a page that has previously been deleted as the result of an AfD discussion, can I simply create the page again or is there some other process? If it's of any use, I have the article basically already written (you can see it at User:Alduin2000/Vaush). Thanks! Alduin2000 (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Alduin2000: I would suggest moving to Draft:Vaush, with a note at the top of the page saying that this is a new version of an article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaush, and asking that it be evaluated for submission. You may also want to ask the opinion of the "delete" !voters in that discussion. BD2412T 17:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I've notified those that participated in the discussion about the AfC. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jusdafax (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jusdafax: I don't understand why I am being notified of this speedy deletion nomination. I have nothing to do with this redirect. BD2412T 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be a glitch from Huggle. My apologies! Jusdafax (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
No worries. Huggle does that sometimes. BD2412T 20:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you "refund to draft" this one for me to try to rescue? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DG_House. It's listed as an article created in an Art+Feminism editathon, which is why it's the only contribution by its creator. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I seek your advice. Do you think my list should go back into mainspace as is? Should I replace the culinary herbs and spices with my list without consensus, since no one seems to want to *give* me consensus (or lack thereof)? Should I just keep working on my list and hope someone responds? Should I do something else entirely? Please advise. Tamtrible (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I have commented in support of your proposal in that discussion. When linking to Wikipedia pages, please use internal links (e.g., Draft:Table of plants used as herbs or spices). Cheers! BD2412T 05:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, can you delete this promotional article about this person? Abdulrahman Akkad
Please have a look at the sources
All from local and unknown sites
Best
--Liam FreeMan VOGUE (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I enjoy watching your work; I've taken a few admins as models and you are damned attractive, so to speak. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, it was my pleasure to support your mophood. Cheers! BD2412T 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for revert. Where I could excercise to make later the collapse correctly, is this possible somehow in sandbox? Is this approciate to I try again with "collapsetop" istead "collapse top"? by WP:Bold? I belive that may be that mistake. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, to add to this, I accidentally relisted my request, however it was not in bad faith, this was my mistake... I will try correct this, I hope any experienced editor will be able to help. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding my edits on Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
Thank you for your post on my talk page regarding my edits on Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and for bringing that issue to my attention. When I edited the page, my sole purpose was to work on the plot points for the first two Iron Man films and the first Avengers film, as those were what I am currently familiar with. So you can imagine my surprise when I saw your response, particularly when it was related to a quote earlier in the article that I didn't even know existed until a few minutes ago. However, upon comparison of the two versions, it does appear that Wikipedia recorded an edit to that quote, specifically the censored word. I have no idea what happened to cause this confusion, whether it was a slip of my fingers or a random glitch on Wikipedia's end. I will go back and make the proper changes and be more mindful so as to avoid this issue again if the problem is on my end. I just wanted to respond so you understand my perspective of the situation, and to defend my credibility as someone who deeply cares about maintaining the integrity and credibility of this awesome Wikipedia project (even though I recognize you have no reason to trust a random editor through the Internet). Anyways, I hope this helps clear any confusion up, and thanks again for bringing the issue to my attention. TNstingray (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Were you editing from a phone? Sometimes they have autocorrect software that conceals curse words in this manner. BD2412T 01:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Your AWB edit correctly added the missing space after a closing ref tag, but you didn't notice that the following text made no sense. It was accidental duplication in my June 21 edit, which I should have spotted at the time - my computer occasionally duplicates everything I type, and I didn't notice this one. A {{clarify}} would have been helpful, if it wasn't clear enough that the text was in error. The difference between a bot and an AWB editor is that the latter checks the article, surely? But, yes, I should have checked my own work too, so thanks for alerting me to my mistake by bringing this section to my watchlist: problem now fixed. PamD 05:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
It was not apparent to me that this was an error, as text in bulletted lists is often choppy. Believe me, I've seen a lot worse in the course of this task. BD2412T 05:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412, I'd like to report user AdArmand for edit-warring on the Sheila Carter article. They first made seven major edits without any prior discussion. After consensus was explained to them, they proceeded to remove a casting photo two more times (for a total of three), even after another editor restored it (because of said consensus). I've tagged you on the Talk page w/ more details. Israell (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
It would probably be best for you to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If I were to act on this pursuant to a talk page solicitation, it would appear that I was excercising favoritism. BD2412T 23:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I filed a request, and the article is now semi-protected (which further proves there was disruption). That said, I've now opened a sockpuppet investigation [1] (there is evidence), and I'd like an admin to review it. I also did tag you a few days ago on the Sheila Carter talk page itself to alert you of the situation. Israell (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I get more than my share of those tags. BD2412T 18:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Omar Hesham. 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. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I have noted the discussion and see no reason to participate therein. BD2412T 17:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would you have resumed work on the Myers draft if I hadn't added a photo to it? DS (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Eventually. I have well over a thousand of these drafts, and am working through them in no particular order. I get one or two done per week. BD2412T 17:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Can you create an article about Deri Lorus? Mksudalin (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The fact that you are requesting recreation of an article previously deleted as having been created by an indefblocked sockpuppet abuser suggests that you are a sockpuppet of the same account. I am reporting this for investigation, with the intent that you be blocked as well, and your sockpuppet contributions deleted. BD2412T 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi,BD2412. Just a question. Wouldn't such edits [2] and [3] require adequate discussion and consensus? In a nutshell, that's my question I'm asking in good faith.
Those edits were arbitrarily made without any justification whatsoever. FMSky wrote: "not a songwriter" in their edit summary, and it's blatantly and provably false. Popcornfud wrote: "It's debateable but shortdescs should be short - stick to the most notable/defining traits," but "songwriter" was part of the article for years until FMSky all of a sudden decided to remove it from both the lede and the infobox. Removing it from the infobox is definitely NOT justifiable as Spears has over 70 songwriting credit incl. one sole songwriting credits, and removing it from the lede requires discussion, I believe—not the other way around! The burden of proof (that Spears is not a songwriter) is on FMSky, and I've demonstrated[4] how is songwriting notable and defining enough in Spears' case. Israell (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey BD, hope all is well. I recall you going around WP with a tool of some sort to link Luke Syson in all around Wikipedia. I've just created the American Institute of Musicology article (which includes a section for the Musica Disciplina redirect); if it's not too much work, would you mind doing the same thing with these two articles? (By "two articles" I mean the AIM one and the Musica Disciplina redirect). No worries if you're too busy! Best Aza24 (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I can give it a shot. BD2412T 06:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Aza24 (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: Done, I think. BD2412T 07:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey, did you mean to fully-protect 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit? It doesn't look like there's a content dispute there, and the vandalism I see looks to be from IPs. Would you mind dropping the protection level? Thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I have reduced the protection level, but I would note that there has been contentious editing there by at least one registered account (albiet a recently registered one). Since the article is under ArbCom post-1992 politics sanctions, it is likely that any hint of shenanigans will get it locked up again for a much longer term. BD2412T 05:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Personal congrats on the talk and page work. It's a nice piece of writing as of this datestamp. Nicely handled by you and several others. If you love the page, let can it go... BusterD (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Participation in a signpost interview for WikiProject Redirect
Hi BD2412, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WikiProject Redirect? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject redirects interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I have put down some thoughts, thanks. BD2412T 05:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a highly suspicious request coming from a new account with no other edits. I therefore reject this request. BD2412T 16:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
comment : this has been moved into article space. Personally, I dont think we should give any space to a book written by somebody that bans his countrymen from reading wikipedia. That's just my opinion, but it should be policy. -Roxy the sceptical dog.wooF 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This article has new been deleted as a creation by a sockpuppet of a banned user, in violation of their ban. BD2412T 19:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this has been submitted to AFC and is looking promising, you may want to take a look. Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it's rather early to submit such an article. My own standard would be to wait until the character appears in at least one additional film (even if not a "Shang-Chi" film), though I would at least wait to see whether Marvel is clever enough to have put him in one of the later What If...? episodes. BD2412T 17:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I can definitely get behind that WP:NORUSH thinking. Per [5] and [6], What If...? season 2 will focus on the Phase Four films, including Shang-Chi. Personally I think the Wong draft needs further work, particularly in characterization and reception areas, although it will definitely be worthwhile getting that up to scratch given he is becoming increasingly recurring in MCU projects. IronManCap (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I think more reception information can be put before moving the Wong draft to mainspace. — ChannelSpider (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, definitely up to moving Shang-Chi's draft until he appears in an additional film, What If...?, or the Shang-Chi sequel. For Octavius, I think that draft looks good enough, the "Hello Peter" moment have become an internet meme. — ChannelSpider (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@ChannelSpider: With Wong the question is whether it is good enough for mainspace as it is. Reception, though important, can be improved in mainspace as readily as in draftspace (though it would be a good thing to prioritize). BD2412T 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: Alright then. I agree to prioritize. — ChannelSpider (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you please restore this page and redirect it to the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson?. I'm thinking about expanding the Cultural impact page by adding some of the content from this deleted page.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Done Cheers! BD2412T 06:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination) 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.
Draft:William B. Gunter, 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/Draft:William B. Gunter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:William B. Gunter 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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: This proposal has now been withdrawn by the nominator. BD2412T 19:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi BD, this is IronManCap. I've had to create a new account for technical reasons following the guidance at WP:SOCKLEGIT, and am now at IronCap2. As a new account, I am obviously unable to edit my old userpage. Could you please either move or redirect my old page to my new one? IronCap2 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Well this is sort of a dilemma. How can you verify that you really are a new account being edited by the same person? And why are you unable to edit your old userpage? It is not a protected page. BD2412T 16:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid that a device change has meant I am unable to access my old password for the account. When I attempt to edit my old userpage, I am prevented from doing by a displayed message marking me as a new user. As for verification, I am fairly sure that any range of verification tools such as CheckUser could be used to confirm the two accounts are linked. You'll notice that my previous account (IronManCap) has been inactive for a short while prior to this, with a Wikibreak extended by this technical issue. As I had not linked an email to the previous account, I was forced to create a new account, adding clarification that this is a linked account not being used for abusive purposes. IronCap2 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
"New user" status only lasts for a few days and a handful of edits. I don't see any harm in waiting that out. I'll keep an eye on your old account in the meantime. BD2412T 17:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thanks. IronCap2 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion ReviewLizRead!Talk! 20:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Liz: I appreciate the notice. This was a redirect to a mainspace page at the time of its creation. I see that the mainspace page has since been moved to draft. I would tend to prefer if the redirects were similarly moved to draft, so that this particular wheel would not need to be reinvented should the target article graduate back to mainspace. However, there is no policy addressing this particular conundrum. BD2412T 21:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Umm, this article was moved back to article space without explanation and without improvement. Might like to look into that. St★lwart111 23:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Moved back and move-protected. BD2412T 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. St★lwart111 00:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello sir, cn you plz move Anusha Rai to draft? I want to continue finding more reviews and coverage and work on it. Ntkn769 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep, really? There was no policy-based argument for that, no sources demonstrating ntability, despite that I explicitly asked for it. Couldn't you have relisted it, at least? Avilich (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion had already been relisted once, and was thereafter sitting in the backlog for days. Nothing in the course of the discussion suggested that a second relisting would change the trajectory. Consensus was clear. Other tools exist besides deletion; I would suggest you propose an alternative, such as a merge to a more encompassing target article. BD2412T 16:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian). 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. Avilich (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have suggested pursuing alternatives. You should have tried other routes first. BD2412T 17:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I was looking through a list of "Orphaned article deletion discussions" and came across this page. Should this be moved or deleted? It's not an actual AFD discussion but maybe it should be a talk subpage for the article. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 22:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted it as created in error. It is not a proper AfD, so there is nothing to preserve. BD2412T 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! You might be interested in User:BOZ/Games deletions which I have been working on for a few months now. The list is huge, I know, but it is sectioned by category. I am going to start one for D&D fictional elements in the near future, as that will be a project unto itself. :) BOZ (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
That is quite a list. BD2412T 19:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
LOL, indeed. I want to find a way to make it more manageable, but right now this is what I am working with. BOZ (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit appears to have added several cite errors. Could you please review that edit, and update any AWB rule that you're using if necessary. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mitch Ames: I backed out the edit and reinstituted the spacing fix manually, but the problem appears to arise from a cluster of improperly formatted references at the bottom of the page, and formatting issues at points throughout the page. Ref tags should not contain external links bracketed with "<>" characters. BD2412T 02:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Thanks. I think I will invite Alalch Emis to opine on what the best hook for the article should be. BD2412T 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I thank your for this honor. Here are my two proposals:
*... that "[[Salting the earth|salting]]" as a metaphor that denotes preventing something from reoccurring is also used in the context of '''[[deletion of articles on Wikipedia]]'''?
*... that '''[[deletion of articles on Wikipedia]]''' is often subject to a decision of an individual volunteer, without prior community input?
The metaphorical character of "salting" is mentioned in the source, but not in the article. The second proposal is therefore more in line with the article's current content. BD2412T 20:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
IMO piping salting in the article would be is appropriate (diff). I personally like DYKs that link two articles together in some interesting way. I'll let you make the call. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that your edit resolves my concern about the first proposal. BD2412T 21:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
If you think the second proposal is better for any reason whatsoever, certainly go with it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I am heading out for a bit, but will post something tonight. BD2412T 21:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe this is my first message on your talk page, but for some reason, thousands of subpages of User:BD2412 dating back to many years, are on my Watchlist. Just wanted to let you know. It may be something to do with how you manage your subpages. It may have started with one subpage which somehow came to my watchlist, and then anything you created out of that started getting added to my watchlist. I just finished removing more than a thousand subpages of yours (most of them were deleted, or moved without a redirect). Perhaps every subpage you ever created. Many more to go. Everytime you convert a subpage to a finished article, I wonder why it is showing on my watchlist, when I have no clue about that article! Jay(talk) 15:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't have thousands of subpages, but there are thousands of drafts that I have created. Perhaps that is what you are seeing. It is certainly not my intent for my edits to be flooding anyone's watchlist. BD2412T 06:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have a quick question for you. Was there ever a Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies draft or page made? I thought there was at one point, but I couldn't find anything. I was just wondering if it would be advantageous to create said page, given that there seems to be controversy over Jennifer Sung's nomination to the Ninth Circuit (regarding her comments about Brett Kavanaugh) and the fact that her nomination stalled in committee yesterday. What say you, yea or nay? Snickers2686 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any history of any such article existing. I would wait and see if anything else develops, either with this case, or with any other nominations. BD2412T 23:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello BD2412: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
