The article Unbelief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing Do justices benefit the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge?Hello, As we create various justice articles for the states, I realized that our contributions may contribute to the 50,000 challenge. Do you think they apply or not? AmericanAir88( talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Drum stick RM close and WP:THREEOUTCOMESHey there, regarding your close of the RM at Talk:Drum_stick#Requested_move_26_June_2019 I have the same question that I posed earlier about your close of the Garlic mustard RM: isn't this a case of "no consensus" rather than "consensus to not move"? A raw headcount gives 5 users supporting the move (including nominator), and 3 users opposing (1 of whom supported a move to a different name instead). Based on your closing comment ("There is a clear absence of consensus to move at this time."), it seems like we're actually on roughly the same page on this and writing Not moved rather than No consensus was just an oversight? (Though with 6 users supporting a move and 2 against, I think even "clear absence of consensus to move" is overstating the case a bit. I'd be inclined to read the situation as there being a rough consensus that the page should be moved, but lack of clear consensus around which title to move it to.) Colin M ( talk) 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you please revert your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 7#David Lieberman, keeping the disambiguation as a draft below the redirect? I don't think it's appropriate to close it with a delete !vote outstanding and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question unresolved. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 23:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
BD, I closed as not moved at Talk:Que_Sera,_Sera_(Whatever_Will_Be,_Will_Be)#Requested_move_11_June_2019. Let me know if you object, in which case I will quickly revert myself. As a further point of info, sources that discuss this point usually use grave accent, not acute; even the page with the album cover you showed did that; see this discussion. I have no opinion on what the "truth" is here, but it's fascinating. Hope I've helped. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Hi. Can I ask why you did this? Other than EFM, those user groups are included in your admin status... Just wonder. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Please delete the entries listed on Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss/R and other similar pages as you do them, or as you complete sections on these pages. I'm finding many that you've done, but have not deleted from this page. It's a waste of time to be checking and going to pages that have already had their typos fixed. Thanks. Ira Ira Leviton ( talk) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of countries by population (United Nations)An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of countries by population (United Nations). 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. Cobblet ( talk) 19:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC) I have a couple of points to raise regarding this article:
"Est, Maria" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Est, Maria. Since you had some involvement with the Est, Maria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Ketil Trout ( <><!) 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Hi BD2412, Can you delete these subpages of Portal:Golf [2]? Thanks. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 05:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC) re: this fix - that (and similar cases) is a closed archive, and I wonder what the dab fixing helps, as it's of no consequence. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings BD2412! I mentioned you on User talk: Paine Ellsworth#Viacom but the ping failed because I spelled your name "bd2412", so here's a more personal notification. Enjoy! — JFG talk 00:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC) "Malik, Abdul" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malik, Abdul. Since you had some involvement with the Malik, Abdul redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Hello! Your submission of Nicholas Emery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about DS notice on Talk:Hillary ClintonSince I forgot to ping you, I might as well mention this here, though I imagine you've watch-listed the page. Understandably, you may think that I am looking for drama. I am not. I waited until after the page had dropped from its main-page promotion a few days ago to make my one sentence addition, as I suspected it would be fought tooth and nail. More than one editor argued to keep this information out of en.wp entirely back in 2016. As such, I am aware that the treatment of this issue is a long-standing problem. I had never edited the biography page ( proof) for precisely this reason: I did not want to politicize the question. However, we are well past political time and into encyclopedic time now... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Residences" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Residences. Since you had some involvement with the Residences redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
"Mental health of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mental health of Donald Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Mental health of Donald Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC) On 30 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas Emery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nicholas Emery tried to negotiate the sale of Maine's northern territory to the American government for one million acres (4,000 km2) of the Michigan Territory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Emery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Nicholas Emery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Your draft article, Draft:Sour GrapesHello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Sour Grapes". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo ( talk) 22:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Hello BD2412,
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs. Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools. Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done. DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Fyi: re Page size. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Oliveleaf4 has given you nuts and bolts! Nuts and bolts promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more efficient. It is the nourishment best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else nuts and bolts, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of nuts and bolts by adding {{ subst:Nuts and bolts for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Would you mind reviewing your close for Franco Fiorito and relist it? I made the last post to the thread noting I had cleaned up the article on WP:HEY grounds, which I believe satisfied the concerns of the users who wanted to move it to draft space. Fiorito clearly passes WP:GNG and a SNG as well, and I fixed the article to remove the potential WP:BLP issue (the article which was discussed referenced allegations, but he has been sentenced for his crimes for a couple years now.) I'd just move it back to mainspace since I think it's ready, but I don't want to look like I'm causing a fuss. I'm asking for a relist for more discussion to take place now I've cleaned up the issues. SportingFlyer T· C 06:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC) You might like to G6 the old empty sub-categories for tidiness' sake. I managed finally to clear another one yesterday, and a couple of them have been hanging around for two months. Narky Blert ( talk) 03:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Need help with another admin's reversion of move following Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019The original Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019 was closed on 8 August 2019 with the article moved to 'River Dyfi' by User:DrKay. However, DrKay has since moved the article back to River Dovey and reopened the discussion interpreting my messages to them as opposing the move, which I was actually satisfied with as 'River Dyfi' appears to be the most common name in reliable modern-day English-language sources, when I was merely asking them to provide a reason for the use of 'River' over 'Afon', in the chose title, used in some English-language Wikipedia articles about rivers in Wales. I tried to ask DrKay in case their reason is helpful in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names discussion I started about the wider dispute on whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in the title of an article about a river in Wales. To re-open the discussion on account of just one user who did not go through Wikipedia:Move review seems rather rash. This contrasts with my request to User:Cuchullain, who closed the Talk:Aberdyfi#Requested move 17 June 2019 discussion, to provide their reason to not move Aberdyfi to 'Aberdovey' ('Both names appear to be in use, but the consensus here is that the sources suggest "Aberdyfi" is the common name in English-language sources') which they provided in at the top of the relevant section and I publicly thanked them for it. Tk420 ( talk) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing off editing the rogue links to Vox that were created after I retargeted a couple of ambiguous links. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 06:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Is there a reason that you chose to delete this instead of re-listing it? I was late to the conversation and the sources I brought to the conversation directly addressed concerns by the nominator. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume Chubbles talked to you. He has a habit of running to the teacher. He and I have been debating (if you could call it that) the very subject you commented on. So we are in the middle of it with nothing resolved yet. You can find the discussion on his Talk page under "Names without Articles".
Hi BD2412. Why did you delete Talk:Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters? G8? Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters was not deleted? I can’t remember why, but they are on my watchlist. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I put a start into rebuilding at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters based on the existence of independent reliable sources, and will add more as I find them. BOZ ( talk) 15:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings BD2412, I have a couple of the pages you recently edited on my watchlist, and I noticed you left an edit summary that it was to fix links to disambiguation pages. However, I also noticed that Princeton isn't a DAB; it's a redirect to Princeton University already. Is there a discussion to create a DAB, or change the target of the redirect? Was curious what was going on there. CThomas3 ( talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
As a fellow administrator who has previously contributed to the List of Hague Academy of International Law people, I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a second opinion with regard to a discussion I am having with User:Hansmuller on the article Talk page regarding the possible renaming of the article because I am not sure if his response to my proposal is consistent with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any assistance you can provide would be most appreciated.-- TommyBoy ( talk) 04:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 19:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC) hi. I may wrong but as far as I remember you were the administrator of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizaveta Shanaeva. Not sure you recall this but after closing the article you have requested further investigate on elizaveta shanaeva’s sports partner devid naryzhnyy. Article was closed on the reason of all keep! votes were from inexperieded wiki editors and they may be a sockpuppets. But after reopened nominations of devid naryzhnyy, experienced editors voted keep on Articles for deletion/devid naryzhnyy, so it was decided to keep again. Not sure you know about figureskating(ice dance), 2 skaters are one team as an russia ice dancer, so they have the same ground. So considering standar of the nomination is acually same. As you already know Im not experienced editor so I just want to ask you to what about reconsidering about closing the article of elizaveta shanaeva. Here i will put the link of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devid Naryzhnyy. thanks and have a good day Yoniiieei ( talk) 09:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC) I noticed you contributed to Alejandro AlmeidaNomination of Alejandro Almeida for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article
Alejandro Almeida 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/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Almeida 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. 00:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC) I wonder if a broad concept article could be written at Clipper (tool)? There was an RM at Talk:Clipper (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 June 2019 where although I agreed specific types of clippers are PTMs (such as nail clippers and hair clippers) I thought that it might be possible to have an article on the tools in general (providing it doesn't violate WP:NOTDIC). If this is done then we could reconsider the RM and I actually would support moving the ship to "Clipper ship" since that's what Encyclopædia Britannica calls it even though they can have more than 1 article with the same title. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you closed that discussion as "keep"; given the nature of the arguments and the statistics brought forward, I think it would be better if the discussion was closed as "no consensus". ToThAc ( talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
BD2412, I came here since I was pinged. I don't have the energy to get into the details above, but I was surprised to see you close a portal MFD, since you have been involved as participant in many recent and current portal MFDs. Despite your undoubted good intentions, I think it's generally unwise to blur those lines, and to assume that one can be wholly impartial while taking a stand elsewhere on closely related issues. I have sometimes entered that grey zone myself in closing CFDs to help clear a big backlog, when there has been a big backlog (sometime sup to 6 months!), and me answering requests to do some closes seems to be the least worst option. In such cases, I do my best to weigh arguments against policy, but it's not a good situation to be in. In this case, there has been no significant backlog at MFD, and there several experienced closer whose lack of involvement is beyond doubt. Given all the controversies around portals, wouldn't it better to leave this one to a clearly uninvolved closer? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ ToThAc: I find no consensus-based policy within Wikipedia giving weight to a ratio of pageviews between types of content. It is perhaps an interesting item of trivia, but in the literally thousands of XfD closures that I have made, it is not one that has ever been supported by any specified policy. It would, in many instances, be comparing apples to oranges. With respect to the need for routine maintenance or the laying out of a maintenance plan, these would need to be properly adopted into policy to be considerations for a closing administrator. As to civility issues, such issues in these discussions are tame compared to some of the more complex closures that I have made in other namespaces, occasionally with dozens of participants shouting bloody murder at each other. I would remind you that no XfD close is of precedential value. Irrespective of whether a discussion is closed as "kept" or "no consensus", any editor is free to re-nominate it for deletion after a reasonable period of time, if policy-based concerns can be articulated. @ BrownHairedGirl: I have had no involvement in any MfD that I have closed. With respect to involvement in other discussions, I do not consider this to be an issue. Many, perhaps most active administrators routinely participate in some AfD discussions and close others. On Wiktionary, where there are fewer admins, I have often closed discussion in which I was a direct participant, without issue. bd2412 T 22:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for disambiguating Governor Johnson. Would you be willing to do the same for Senator Tydings? I've thought about recreating it for a while, but since it's been speedy deleted once I would like to have a record of having discussed before recreating with at least one other editor. The proposed contents of the page would be links to Millard Tydings, U.S. Senator from Maryland (1927-1951) and Joseph Tydings, U.S. Senator from Maryland (1965-1971) and Millard Tydings' son, in addition to a disambiguation template (probably {{disambiguation|tndis}}). Please ping if you're able to reply. Cheers, Airbornemihir ( talk) 06:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient). Thank you. Buffs ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"Brazier, Joseph" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brazier, Joseph. Since you had some involvement with the Brazier, Joseph redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Request for Consideration: Review of Article/Talk Church of the Creator - Substantial IP content - Protracted ® LitigationI am in Wikipedia terms a COI, relative the Article ".... Church of the Creator TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. and its expression as a church, Church Of The Creator® was involved in an unusual Trademark Litigation. Currently the TALK page contains about 75% of the content, before it was deleted, now under "discussion." After praying, asking for W Editors who might review the discussion, you quickly came to my attention. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If Trademark, Litigation, multiple appeals are of interest to you, you might enjoy a look. Thank you. Michael S. Legions ( talk) 18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I edited the page Portal:Law while you were also doing so...I made a few changes I hope your OK with....as I said had no clue you were also there at the same time.-- Moxy 🍁 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Judging by my glance at it. It looks ready enough. Jhenderson 777 02:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I saw your comment to SmokeyJoe in the article talk thread. As (co)proposer I'm obviously unqualified to serve as closer. Nonetheless I am carefully going through each comment with the goal of accurately summarizing the various perspectives per WP:OTHERSOPINION. It's a little ambiguous whether your comment was sort of an offhand remark to correct another editor's impression, of if you meant to offer a Not-Vote in the discussion for the closer to consider. If you have time, would you mind adding to the thread to clarify how the closer should read your input? Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
However, the narrow scope of the babystep proposal (first bullet above) is to try to solve a PRIMARYTOPIC mismatch between the ambiguous title and contents. If the baby step passes, I expect progress on the other issues, which has always proven impossible when we try to jam all the tweaks into one discussion at one time. It seems like with 2 editors and one nuance you get three opinions. Add either another editor or another nuance and the opinions grow exponentially! So for the first time after years of failure, we're trying to do it in disciplined bite size pieces. if you care to comment on teh narrow baby step, please do! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll refrain from posting stubs that could be obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GovernorLegislator ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC) |
The article Unbelief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing Do justices benefit the Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge?Hello, As we create various justice articles for the states, I realized that our contributions may contribute to the 50,000 challenge. Do you think they apply or not? AmericanAir88( talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Drum stick RM close and WP:THREEOUTCOMESHey there, regarding your close of the RM at Talk:Drum_stick#Requested_move_26_June_2019 I have the same question that I posed earlier about your close of the Garlic mustard RM: isn't this a case of "no consensus" rather than "consensus to not move"? A raw headcount gives 5 users supporting the move (including nominator), and 3 users opposing (1 of whom supported a move to a different name instead). Based on your closing comment ("There is a clear absence of consensus to move at this time."), it seems like we're actually on roughly the same page on this and writing Not moved rather than No consensus was just an oversight? (Though with 6 users supporting a move and 2 against, I think even "clear absence of consensus to move" is overstating the case a bit. I'd be inclined to read the situation as there being a rough consensus that the page should be moved, but lack of clear consensus around which title to move it to.) Colin M ( talk) 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you please revert your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 7#David Lieberman, keeping the disambiguation as a draft below the redirect? I don't think it's appropriate to close it with a delete !vote outstanding and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question unresolved. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 23:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
BD, I closed as not moved at Talk:Que_Sera,_Sera_(Whatever_Will_Be,_Will_Be)#Requested_move_11_June_2019. Let me know if you object, in which case I will quickly revert myself. As a further point of info, sources that discuss this point usually use grave accent, not acute; even the page with the album cover you showed did that; see this discussion. I have no opinion on what the "truth" is here, but it's fascinating. Hope I've helped. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Hi. Can I ask why you did this? Other than EFM, those user groups are included in your admin status... Just wonder. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Please delete the entries listed on Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss/R and other similar pages as you do them, or as you complete sections on these pages. I'm finding many that you've done, but have not deleted from this page. It's a waste of time to be checking and going to pages that have already had their typos fixed. Thanks. Ira Ira Leviton ( talk) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of countries by population (United Nations)An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of countries by population (United Nations). 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. Cobblet ( talk) 19:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC) I have a couple of points to raise regarding this article:
"Est, Maria" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Est, Maria. Since you had some involvement with the Est, Maria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Ketil Trout ( <><!) 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Hi BD2412, Can you delete these subpages of Portal:Golf [2]? Thanks. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 05:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC) re: this fix - that (and similar cases) is a closed archive, and I wonder what the dab fixing helps, as it's of no consequence. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings BD2412! I mentioned you on User talk: Paine Ellsworth#Viacom but the ping failed because I spelled your name "bd2412", so here's a more personal notification. Enjoy! — JFG talk 00:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC) "Malik, Abdul" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malik, Abdul. Since you had some involvement with the Malik, Abdul redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Hello! Your submission of Nicholas Emery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion about DS notice on Talk:Hillary ClintonSince I forgot to ping you, I might as well mention this here, though I imagine you've watch-listed the page. Understandably, you may think that I am looking for drama. I am not. I waited until after the page had dropped from its main-page promotion a few days ago to make my one sentence addition, as I suspected it would be fought tooth and nail. More than one editor argued to keep this information out of en.wp entirely back in 2016. As such, I am aware that the treatment of this issue is a long-standing problem. I had never edited the biography page ( proof) for precisely this reason: I did not want to politicize the question. However, we are well past political time and into encyclopedic time now... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Residences" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Residences. Since you had some involvement with the Residences redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
"Mental health of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mental health of Donald Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Mental health of Donald Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC) On 30 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas Emery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nicholas Emery tried to negotiate the sale of Maine's northern territory to the American government for one million acres (4,000 km2) of the Michigan Territory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Emery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Nicholas Emery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Your draft article, Draft:Sour GrapesHello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Sour Grapes". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo ( talk) 22:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Hello BD2412,
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs. Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools. Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done. DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Fyi: re Page size. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Oliveleaf4 has given you nuts and bolts! Nuts and bolts promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more efficient. It is the nourishment best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else nuts and bolts, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of nuts and bolts by adding {{ subst:Nuts and bolts for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Would you mind reviewing your close for Franco Fiorito and relist it? I made the last post to the thread noting I had cleaned up the article on WP:HEY grounds, which I believe satisfied the concerns of the users who wanted to move it to draft space. Fiorito clearly passes WP:GNG and a SNG as well, and I fixed the article to remove the potential WP:BLP issue (the article which was discussed referenced allegations, but he has been sentenced for his crimes for a couple years now.) I'd just move it back to mainspace since I think it's ready, but I don't want to look like I'm causing a fuss. I'm asking for a relist for more discussion to take place now I've cleaned up the issues. SportingFlyer T· C 06:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC) You might like to G6 the old empty sub-categories for tidiness' sake. I managed finally to clear another one yesterday, and a couple of them have been hanging around for two months. Narky Blert ( talk) 03:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Need help with another admin's reversion of move following Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019The original Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019 was closed on 8 August 2019 with the article moved to 'River Dyfi' by User:DrKay. However, DrKay has since moved the article back to River Dovey and reopened the discussion interpreting my messages to them as opposing the move, which I was actually satisfied with as 'River Dyfi' appears to be the most common name in reliable modern-day English-language sources, when I was merely asking them to provide a reason for the use of 'River' over 'Afon', in the chose title, used in some English-language Wikipedia articles about rivers in Wales. I tried to ask DrKay in case their reason is helpful in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names discussion I started about the wider dispute on whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in the title of an article about a river in Wales. To re-open the discussion on account of just one user who did not go through Wikipedia:Move review seems rather rash. This contrasts with my request to User:Cuchullain, who closed the Talk:Aberdyfi#Requested move 17 June 2019 discussion, to provide their reason to not move Aberdyfi to 'Aberdovey' ('Both names appear to be in use, but the consensus here is that the sources suggest "Aberdyfi" is the common name in English-language sources') which they provided in at the top of the relevant section and I publicly thanked them for it. Tk420 ( talk) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing off editing the rogue links to Vox that were created after I retargeted a couple of ambiguous links. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 06:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Is there a reason that you chose to delete this instead of re-listing it? I was late to the conversation and the sources I brought to the conversation directly addressed concerns by the nominator. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume Chubbles talked to you. He has a habit of running to the teacher. He and I have been debating (if you could call it that) the very subject you commented on. So we are in the middle of it with nothing resolved yet. You can find the discussion on his Talk page under "Names without Articles".
Hi BD2412. Why did you delete Talk:Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters? G8? Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters was not deleted? I can’t remember why, but they are on my watchlist. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I put a start into rebuilding at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters based on the existence of independent reliable sources, and will add more as I find them. BOZ ( talk) 15:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings BD2412, I have a couple of the pages you recently edited on my watchlist, and I noticed you left an edit summary that it was to fix links to disambiguation pages. However, I also noticed that Princeton isn't a DAB; it's a redirect to Princeton University already. Is there a discussion to create a DAB, or change the target of the redirect? Was curious what was going on there. CThomas3 ( talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
As a fellow administrator who has previously contributed to the List of Hague Academy of International Law people, I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a second opinion with regard to a discussion I am having with User:Hansmuller on the article Talk page regarding the possible renaming of the article because I am not sure if his response to my proposal is consistent with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any assistance you can provide would be most appreciated.-- TommyBoy ( talk) 04:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 19:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC) hi. I may wrong but as far as I remember you were the administrator of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizaveta Shanaeva. Not sure you recall this but after closing the article you have requested further investigate on elizaveta shanaeva’s sports partner devid naryzhnyy. Article was closed on the reason of all keep! votes were from inexperieded wiki editors and they may be a sockpuppets. But after reopened nominations of devid naryzhnyy, experienced editors voted keep on Articles for deletion/devid naryzhnyy, so it was decided to keep again. Not sure you know about figureskating(ice dance), 2 skaters are one team as an russia ice dancer, so they have the same ground. So considering standar of the nomination is acually same. As you already know Im not experienced editor so I just want to ask you to what about reconsidering about closing the article of elizaveta shanaeva. Here i will put the link of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devid Naryzhnyy. thanks and have a good day Yoniiieei ( talk) 09:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC) I noticed you contributed to Alejandro AlmeidaNomination of Alejandro Almeida for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article
Alejandro Almeida 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/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Almeida 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. 00:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC) I wonder if a broad concept article could be written at Clipper (tool)? There was an RM at Talk:Clipper (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 June 2019 where although I agreed specific types of clippers are PTMs (such as nail clippers and hair clippers) I thought that it might be possible to have an article on the tools in general (providing it doesn't violate WP:NOTDIC). If this is done then we could reconsider the RM and I actually would support moving the ship to "Clipper ship" since that's what Encyclopædia Britannica calls it even though they can have more than 1 article with the same title. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 16:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you closed that discussion as "keep"; given the nature of the arguments and the statistics brought forward, I think it would be better if the discussion was closed as "no consensus". ToThAc ( talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
BD2412, I came here since I was pinged. I don't have the energy to get into the details above, but I was surprised to see you close a portal MFD, since you have been involved as participant in many recent and current portal MFDs. Despite your undoubted good intentions, I think it's generally unwise to blur those lines, and to assume that one can be wholly impartial while taking a stand elsewhere on closely related issues. I have sometimes entered that grey zone myself in closing CFDs to help clear a big backlog, when there has been a big backlog (sometime sup to 6 months!), and me answering requests to do some closes seems to be the least worst option. In such cases, I do my best to weigh arguments against policy, but it's not a good situation to be in. In this case, there has been no significant backlog at MFD, and there several experienced closer whose lack of involvement is beyond doubt. Given all the controversies around portals, wouldn't it better to leave this one to a clearly uninvolved closer? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ ToThAc: I find no consensus-based policy within Wikipedia giving weight to a ratio of pageviews between types of content. It is perhaps an interesting item of trivia, but in the literally thousands of XfD closures that I have made, it is not one that has ever been supported by any specified policy. It would, in many instances, be comparing apples to oranges. With respect to the need for routine maintenance or the laying out of a maintenance plan, these would need to be properly adopted into policy to be considerations for a closing administrator. As to civility issues, such issues in these discussions are tame compared to some of the more complex closures that I have made in other namespaces, occasionally with dozens of participants shouting bloody murder at each other. I would remind you that no XfD close is of precedential value. Irrespective of whether a discussion is closed as "kept" or "no consensus", any editor is free to re-nominate it for deletion after a reasonable period of time, if policy-based concerns can be articulated. @ BrownHairedGirl: I have had no involvement in any MfD that I have closed. With respect to involvement in other discussions, I do not consider this to be an issue. Many, perhaps most active administrators routinely participate in some AfD discussions and close others. On Wiktionary, where there are fewer admins, I have often closed discussion in which I was a direct participant, without issue. bd2412 T 22:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for disambiguating Governor Johnson. Would you be willing to do the same for Senator Tydings? I've thought about recreating it for a while, but since it's been speedy deleted once I would like to have a record of having discussed before recreating with at least one other editor. The proposed contents of the page would be links to Millard Tydings, U.S. Senator from Maryland (1927-1951) and Joseph Tydings, U.S. Senator from Maryland (1965-1971) and Millard Tydings' son, in addition to a disambiguation template (probably {{disambiguation|tndis}}). Please ping if you're able to reply. Cheers, Airbornemihir ( talk) 06:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient). Thank you. Buffs ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"Brazier, Joseph" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brazier, Joseph. Since you had some involvement with the Brazier, Joseph redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Request for Consideration: Review of Article/Talk Church of the Creator - Substantial IP content - Protracted ® LitigationI am in Wikipedia terms a COI, relative the Article ".... Church of the Creator TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. and its expression as a church, Church Of The Creator® was involved in an unusual Trademark Litigation. Currently the TALK page contains about 75% of the content, before it was deleted, now under "discussion." After praying, asking for W Editors who might review the discussion, you quickly came to my attention. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If Trademark, Litigation, multiple appeals are of interest to you, you might enjoy a look. Thank you. Michael S. Legions ( talk) 18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I edited the page Portal:Law while you were also doing so...I made a few changes I hope your OK with....as I said had no clue you were also there at the same time.-- Moxy 🍁 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Judging by my glance at it. It looks ready enough. Jhenderson 777 02:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I saw your comment to SmokeyJoe in the article talk thread. As (co)proposer I'm obviously unqualified to serve as closer. Nonetheless I am carefully going through each comment with the goal of accurately summarizing the various perspectives per WP:OTHERSOPINION. It's a little ambiguous whether your comment was sort of an offhand remark to correct another editor's impression, of if you meant to offer a Not-Vote in the discussion for the closer to consider. If you have time, would you mind adding to the thread to clarify how the closer should read your input? Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
However, the narrow scope of the babystep proposal (first bullet above) is to try to solve a PRIMARYTOPIC mismatch between the ambiguous title and contents. If the baby step passes, I expect progress on the other issues, which has always proven impossible when we try to jam all the tweaks into one discussion at one time. It seems like with 2 editors and one nuance you get three opinions. Add either another editor or another nuance and the opinions grow exponentially! So for the first time after years of failure, we're trying to do it in disciplined bite size pieces. if you care to comment on teh narrow baby step, please do! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll refrain from posting stubs that could be obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GovernorLegislator ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC) |