I accidentally moved some talk page archives trying to get rid of that malicious leftover redirect; need some cleanup. [1] Apologies. Home Lander ( talk) 02:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I just want to point out my reasoning as to why state legislators are notable automatically. Bearian ( talk) 21:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for James A. ReddenOn 2 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article James A. Redden, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible ( talk) 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Hey. You should've informed me, the page creator, that you were planning to delete it, or go through a deletion process so I could contest it. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
"Micronychia (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Micronychia (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Micronychia (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "Fort Douglas (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fort Douglas (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Fort Douglas (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC) I saw you just created Willis J. Brogden. I'm finishing off Lycurgus R. Varser, so let's not overwrite each other :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Could I trouble you to tag Chuck Taylor, which you protected in 2009, as {{ R from ambiguous term}}? Narky Blert ( talk) 10:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Thanks for uploading File:GallowsPole-Leadbelly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).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) 17:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Since the main page is in draft, the talk page should be as well. Starzoner ( talk) 19:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Hi! Thanks for moving the page to Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. However, I was wondering why Winners Take All (book) was redirected to the disambiguation page. There are no other books with the title Winners Take All. All the books are titled Winner Take(s) All. The only other works with the same title are a film, an album, and that album's title track. Shouldn't Winners Take All (book) be redirected to Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World? Thanks. I grieve in stereo ( talk) 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I see you closed Benno Bikes as a Keep. Can you please explain your reasoning? Why not "No Consensus"? None of the Keep !votes addressed the deficiencies with poor references and most of the Keep !votes are not based on any policy or guideline. Seems like !vote counting to me if the arguments being made are not being weighed. HighKing ++ 11:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
Hello, I've noticed that you have "protected" the article Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign all the way until November this year. That measure seems quite extreme - has this been discussed anywhere? BeŻet ( talk) 11:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Benno BikesAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Benno Bikes. 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. HighKing ++ 13:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Hello, I'm looking for advice cause I'm a little confused by something. I know there is the article/list of Political appointments by Donald Trump. But now an editor has moved a majority of content from that page to separate pages they created,
And I'm just trying to figure out where the precedent is for creating such articles. Federal judges I get, because there's lists for every single president, but I've seen said lists for U.S. attorneys appointed by Trump, US marshals appointed by Trump (which I know was later deleted), Ambassadors appointed by Trump...I mean where does it end? Especially given there are no like-minded (to my knowledge) articles for other presidents. Snickers2686 ( talk) 20:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Haifa Wehbe’s ageHaifa wehbe was born in 1976 not 1972 which means that she is 44 years old not 48 Hanzzocave ( talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PackMecEng ( talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Heya. Just saw a bunch of old AfDs pop up on my watchlist. It looks like you're going back through all old AfDs you've participated in and changing your signature link a la this. My understanding is nonessential editing of closed XfDs isn't something we ever really do (ditto changing old signatures). It also seems a little misleading to change a signature to point to a practically empty subpage of the real userpage. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I figure I'd leave you a message while you're just through the Bs, since you probably have some hundreds to do and that'll probably raise some eyebrows... Out of curiosity, what purpose does pointing to a deletion subpage serve? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This edit, of an eight-years-closed AFD, caught my attention just now. I think that touching closed archives this way, for your own purposes, is not acceptable, is in fact not allowed, though I can't at this moment identify where/how. For one reason, it is self-serving; I too would like to change closed AFDs so that wp:AFDSTATS would properly characterize my participation, but don't. It tinkers others' watchlists. With the date-changing it mis-characterizes, mis-identifies those closed cases, like if someone went into U.S. Supreme Court cases and re-dated Marbury v. Madison etc. It causes searches to be misleading, makes difficulty for people to find stuff. If there's one such edit, I suppose there are more? -- Doncram ( talk) 03:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I too was somewhat surprised to see old RfDs hitting my watchlist. Please don't edit old discussions but find some other way to keep your personal records. Thanks. Pam D 10:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I don't object to small fixes in archives, but I do object to many identical bot-like edits filling my watchlist. If the exact same fix is needed on many many archives, to avoid annoying people who pay attention to their watchlists, please use a bot. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I've only just noticed this close, which frankly is rather wierd. I accept the comments are all over the place, but only one commenter's final word supported this title (which I strongly opposed), and they gave a reason that was clearly refuted in the discussion. There was a clear movement to favour Crusader states in the Middle East, including from the nominator, who commented several times with different opinions, including a "vote". Please look at it again. Johnbod ( talk) 12:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to recommend this article be undeleted. I think this happened too quickly and without enough discussion. It was an incredibly valuable page. Cause given was "possible fancraft", but it's widely referenced by photographers, web sites, and camera stores precisely for its unbiased encyclopedic value. I'm not sure where else other than Wikipedia an evolving data table like this could be hosted more reliably. Thanks for your consideration. Digitect ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Comparison of Canon EOS digital camerasDigitect has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras. 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. at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_April_24#Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras Digitect ( talk) 06:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC) hiya DB, I saw you straight up deleted, however can you add it to my sandbox ( User:Govvy/LDB84), so I can strip a few bits, as I want to improve the Dinamo Bucharest pages. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC) You said something about the movie not showing when Scott Lang realizes it's been five years since he went into the quantum realm for five hours and that Thanos has snapped away half of all life in the universe. I've got two questions: one, how does Lang know he experienced five hours, and two, isn't it clear that by the time he arrives at the Avengers compound, he's fully realized what happened? Mk8mlyb ( talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been having hell with my internet connection here on Bonaire. I'm borrowing my neighbor's right now (they have a fiberoptic connection) but I'm not sure how long it will last because they've been having issues, too. Promise, I'm not intentionally leaving some of the changes I've made on the collaborative article. It's just that getting back to tweak what I've written has been a problem. If you see a glaring wtf, blame my internet connection - I'm mostly innocent. 😇 Atsme Talk 📧 15:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"Category:Media in Minorca" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Media in Minorca. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Media in Minorca redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 19:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Just a thought that using
AfC notification: Draft:William Y. Pemberton has a new comment
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at
Draft:William Y. Pemberton. Thanks!
KylieTastic (
talk) 15:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The article says Ellis is in Ellis County. Did the counties change? TuThe counties do seem to border each other. Maybe he was born outside Ellis? I don't know. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello: thanks for your message. I'm following the Manual of Style: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes section 9.9.2.1, I think. I use –, I think it creates similar spacing as – , although I find that – doesn't center the dash in the published version when I use it... (at least when I look at it). I hope this helps. Thanks for all of your work, by the way. :) -- FeanorStar7 ( talk) 10:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC) The Laurel Coppock article has been updated and released for publication. It is our hope that it will not be deleted as it has in the past. I'm not sure what to do with the draft article Draft:Laurel Coppock, which still exists. Many Thanks for your help! Truthanado ( talk) 15:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Are IPs allowed to vote? Just a question. The4lines |||| ( You Asked?) ( What I have Done.) 18:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Good evening, the last time I had to have recourse to the page List of translations of the Paschal greeting, there was no advice that it should be deleted. So, why did you delete this page ? How can it be rebuilt, or at least how can I have access to the data, to place them (for example) in the article "paschal greetings" (which, I hope, you do not intend to delete also...)? From France. Albocicade ( talk) 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for your message and I hope all is well with you. Apologies for the upset caused with the page moves, this was not my intention so please accept my wholehearted apologies for any disruption or inconvenience caused. The template pages appeared to suggest the page was within a series of common law legal systems and not a comparative discussion of property law across common law, civilian, hybrid, islamic, hindu legal systems. On reflection, I appreciate the page is more comparative in its objective, which understandably, because the page is English speaking is primarily a discussion of common law property regimes and adopts their terms. I am new to wikipedia editing so finding the policies is difficult but thank you for the references, I will note them before making any further changes. As you will know, I have been trying to update and expand the Scots law sections of wiki, primarily Scots property law which shares a common heritage with common-law jurisdictions in many respects due to Roman law. This work eventually led me to looking at the Roman law pages on wiki which led me to the main pages on property and there are phrases and terms that are commonly used across different legal systems. I would be quite interested to try and help improve the main property pages, once I have finished the substantive Scots pages, to help diversify the main pages so it is more comparative if you wanted to discuss further? With best wishes, Kentigern1136 ( talk) 12:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, Thank you for getting back to me so promptly! I appreciate this is not a matter between you and I, my apologies if the wording of my previous message indicated that. I just meant in terms of whether you would like to enter into a discussion on the talk page concerning this, as I'm keen to know the rest of the community's opinion on this, or is there a more appropriate forum to discuss openly and engage such as the WikiProject? I am still concerned the property law mainpages are too integrated into common law legal system discussions due to the property law template itself specifically referencing "Part of the common law series". Of course as you say a comparative edits to the mainpages are probably the best solution here to this due to the shared Roman law heritage but I may raise this on the sidebar template itself to discuss further as I feel a comparative approach is more appropriate than the current common-law dominated discussion. However, Scots law wikipedia pages are in a sorry state at present so I don't think I'll be raising my head above the parapet for the foreseeable future; the perks of a small jurisdiction! These matters were no doubt discussed in the days of old by the architects of the legal pages but I still feel revisiting the classification of these pages in light of the heavy common-law influences on the pages may be beneficial in an effort to provide clarity and guidance where a reader is trying to identify the lex situs. My primary concern is a layman reading the pages from a non common-law jurisdiction. Alas, if only there was a Hague Convention on Property law! I'll try start a discussion on the WikiProject in furtherance of this as would like to know other people's thoughts on this. But in the meantime, again thank you for the help and guidance, it is very much appreciated and again, my sincerest apologies for inconveniencing you and for overstepping the mark. Best wishes, Kentigern1136 ( talk) 19:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Since you're the blocking admin for Crash your car will cure coronaviirus!! as a vandalism-only account, I thought I should give you a heads-up that I opened an SPI case request into that user, as I strongly suspect them to be a cross-wiki long term abuser based on past behavior and recent edits. It can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BMX On WheeIs. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 23:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, re [ this RFC close]. Since you closed it, the RFC has been templated as having been disrupted by a now banned sock. Would it change your closing statement at all? Thanks. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
On 19 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Please, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in some situations, saying " please" may yield worse outcomes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Please. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Please), 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.
I didn't see your proposal until today, and it appears moot, but I thought it was worth exploring. I don't work in that area, so my opinion is non particularly well-informed (as respects the process_ but I concur that the problem is real, and worth addressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Will you please reconsider your close here? The creator who clearly has a COI moving it to draftspace on their own volition is not really how AFD works in my opinion and there was a clear consensus to delete, not indefinitely incubate spam in draft space. :/ Praxidicae ( talk) 11:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Perry L. Owsley has been accepted
Perry L. Owsley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now
create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to
Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic ( talk) 17:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel like I'm being unfairly threatened with sanctions by administrator MelanieN at Talk:Donald_Trump#"Personal_image"_subsection;_change_to_Consensus_item_39. I know that you were a supporter in the relevant RfC, but I'm not canvassing you into the discussion about the content; I'm contacting you because I hope you'll see that my repeated requests for clarification are reasonable and not badgering (at least not intentionally). Maybe I'm bad at asking questions or I have poor reading comprehension, but I feel like we're dealing with a very lawyerly issue here which requires tremendous precision. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Nawab Afridi ( talk) 17:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Being a moderator, you always checked my page List of Pakistani Peace Laureates and fixed the errors every time (for which I am always thankful to you but today I just checked my page and have found some other moderator removing the descriptions and ruining my entire page. All my efforts and struggle have been ruined.
I'm concerned that your proposal of a 6-month "automatic ban" relating to the US elections has been stated in a preliminary format that is not likely to result in a useful outcome. The problem with the American Politics articles has been lack of enforcement, not lack of tools or principles. All of the disruptive behaviors that plague these articles every election season are already block/ban eligible per site norms, Admin powers, and Arbcom DS provisions. What's been difficult has been the enforcement. Admins tend to shy away from routine patrolling and exercise of their authority. Enforcement actions become personalized or politicized when they are taken to a noticeboard. In short, I think the wording "automatic 6-month ban" begs the question, because there is no automatic mechanism or process on WP. It would be very constructive and most welcome if you have some ideas as to how the kind of order-keeping you envision could be made operational. I'm afraid the comments at ANI are going to focus on the goal, which is not controversial, while failing to come up with robust modes of enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer. Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer. To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process! Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Would you please take a look at YeetusThefeetus192737 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Apparently they're bored and decided to entertain themselves by demonstrating their maturity to us. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to revoke talk page access for them, too? Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 13:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Good day, I am writing to discuss the un-deletion of the Canon EOS Digital cameras and Nikon DSLR cameras comparison pages. Pages for specific Nikon cameras and Canon Cameras exist, so why can the comparison of them not? They all interconnected, to the model, to the processor, etc. For the few notations listed in the deletion review, there was not much discussion. It took an afternoon without much reasoning and both were deleted, pages that had years of information on them. "Possible fancraft" & "Wikipedia is not a Consumer Reports" are not what these pages are about at all. Just noting the word "possible" means it really was not vetted enough. The comparison chart does not show which is better, it shows the specifications, it shows the history of a large part of the camera industry in the last few decades. It shows the technological advancement of the two largest manufacturers and anyone studying photography, optics, motors, batteries, etc would find this information useful. "Wikipedia is a compendium of the world's knowledge." Taken from the main page of Wikipedia. These two pages summarize that phrase exactly. If there are errors on the pages, I am sure that there are enough photographers out there willing to pinch in and update them. By far, the camera, is one of this century's largest advancements. Having their history preserved and perhaps far better linked to the Technology and the Arts pages on Wikipedia would be far better than deleting them. They are not just devices, but they are tools that create art, by frame, and in films. They have created, and are still creating, our history. Reading that other technology item pages may also be deleted, would also erase the history of those devices. At a time when technology is advancing so rapidly, it won't be long before the old are forgotten and the history deleted. You are doing a large dis-service by deleting them and should instead be creating a history of technology. Sincerely Kiddl Kiddl ( talk) 04:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I just saw your mention of topic bans for sock puppetry in the 2020 candidates arena. There is an account I have been suspicious of and am wondering what the requirements are for looking into whether an account is indeed a sock. The account has been very much an SPA and their first day they sounded as if they’d been here a decade, including phrases like “what we do here at Wikipedia...”. I’ve never dealt with a possible sock before besides ignoring them, but this one is exceedingly active in the most controversial areas. Thank you for your help, petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Harold R. Fatzer has been accepted
Harold R. Fatzer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now
create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to
Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic ( talk) 16:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC) |
I accidentally moved some talk page archives trying to get rid of that malicious leftover redirect; need some cleanup. [1] Apologies. Home Lander ( talk) 02:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I just want to point out my reasoning as to why state legislators are notable automatically. Bearian ( talk) 21:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for James A. ReddenOn 2 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article James A. Redden, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible ( talk) 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Hey. You should've informed me, the page creator, that you were planning to delete it, or go through a deletion process so I could contest it. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
"Micronychia (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Micronychia (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Micronychia (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC) "Fort Douglas (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fort Douglas (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Fort Douglas (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC) I saw you just created Willis J. Brogden. I'm finishing off Lycurgus R. Varser, so let's not overwrite each other :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Could I trouble you to tag Chuck Taylor, which you protected in 2009, as {{ R from ambiguous term}}? Narky Blert ( talk) 10:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Thanks for uploading File:GallowsPole-Leadbelly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).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) 17:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Since the main page is in draft, the talk page should be as well. Starzoner ( talk) 19:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Hi! Thanks for moving the page to Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. However, I was wondering why Winners Take All (book) was redirected to the disambiguation page. There are no other books with the title Winners Take All. All the books are titled Winner Take(s) All. The only other works with the same title are a film, an album, and that album's title track. Shouldn't Winners Take All (book) be redirected to Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World? Thanks. I grieve in stereo ( talk) 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I see you closed Benno Bikes as a Keep. Can you please explain your reasoning? Why not "No Consensus"? None of the Keep !votes addressed the deficiencies with poor references and most of the Keep !votes are not based on any policy or guideline. Seems like !vote counting to me if the arguments being made are not being weighed. HighKing ++ 11:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
A Dobos torte for you!
Hello, I've noticed that you have "protected" the article Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign all the way until November this year. That measure seems quite extreme - has this been discussed anywhere? BeŻet ( talk) 11:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Benno BikesAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Benno Bikes. 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. HighKing ++ 13:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Hello, I'm looking for advice cause I'm a little confused by something. I know there is the article/list of Political appointments by Donald Trump. But now an editor has moved a majority of content from that page to separate pages they created,
And I'm just trying to figure out where the precedent is for creating such articles. Federal judges I get, because there's lists for every single president, but I've seen said lists for U.S. attorneys appointed by Trump, US marshals appointed by Trump (which I know was later deleted), Ambassadors appointed by Trump...I mean where does it end? Especially given there are no like-minded (to my knowledge) articles for other presidents. Snickers2686 ( talk) 20:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Haifa Wehbe’s ageHaifa wehbe was born in 1976 not 1972 which means that she is 44 years old not 48 Hanzzocave ( talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PackMecEng ( talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Heya. Just saw a bunch of old AfDs pop up on my watchlist. It looks like you're going back through all old AfDs you've participated in and changing your signature link a la this. My understanding is nonessential editing of closed XfDs isn't something we ever really do (ditto changing old signatures). It also seems a little misleading to change a signature to point to a practically empty subpage of the real userpage. Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I figure I'd leave you a message while you're just through the Bs, since you probably have some hundreds to do and that'll probably raise some eyebrows... Out of curiosity, what purpose does pointing to a deletion subpage serve? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This edit, of an eight-years-closed AFD, caught my attention just now. I think that touching closed archives this way, for your own purposes, is not acceptable, is in fact not allowed, though I can't at this moment identify where/how. For one reason, it is self-serving; I too would like to change closed AFDs so that wp:AFDSTATS would properly characterize my participation, but don't. It tinkers others' watchlists. With the date-changing it mis-characterizes, mis-identifies those closed cases, like if someone went into U.S. Supreme Court cases and re-dated Marbury v. Madison etc. It causes searches to be misleading, makes difficulty for people to find stuff. If there's one such edit, I suppose there are more? -- Doncram ( talk) 03:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I too was somewhat surprised to see old RfDs hitting my watchlist. Please don't edit old discussions but find some other way to keep your personal records. Thanks. Pam D 10:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I don't object to small fixes in archives, but I do object to many identical bot-like edits filling my watchlist. If the exact same fix is needed on many many archives, to avoid annoying people who pay attention to their watchlists, please use a bot. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I've only just noticed this close, which frankly is rather wierd. I accept the comments are all over the place, but only one commenter's final word supported this title (which I strongly opposed), and they gave a reason that was clearly refuted in the discussion. There was a clear movement to favour Crusader states in the Middle East, including from the nominator, who commented several times with different opinions, including a "vote". Please look at it again. Johnbod ( talk) 12:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to recommend this article be undeleted. I think this happened too quickly and without enough discussion. It was an incredibly valuable page. Cause given was "possible fancraft", but it's widely referenced by photographers, web sites, and camera stores precisely for its unbiased encyclopedic value. I'm not sure where else other than Wikipedia an evolving data table like this could be hosted more reliably. Thanks for your consideration. Digitect ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Comparison of Canon EOS digital camerasDigitect has asked for a deletion review of Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras. 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. at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_April_24#Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras Digitect ( talk) 06:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC) hiya DB, I saw you straight up deleted, however can you add it to my sandbox ( User:Govvy/LDB84), so I can strip a few bits, as I want to improve the Dinamo Bucharest pages. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC) You said something about the movie not showing when Scott Lang realizes it's been five years since he went into the quantum realm for five hours and that Thanos has snapped away half of all life in the universe. I've got two questions: one, how does Lang know he experienced five hours, and two, isn't it clear that by the time he arrives at the Avengers compound, he's fully realized what happened? Mk8mlyb ( talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been having hell with my internet connection here on Bonaire. I'm borrowing my neighbor's right now (they have a fiberoptic connection) but I'm not sure how long it will last because they've been having issues, too. Promise, I'm not intentionally leaving some of the changes I've made on the collaborative article. It's just that getting back to tweak what I've written has been a problem. If you see a glaring wtf, blame my internet connection - I'm mostly innocent. 😇 Atsme Talk 📧 15:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"Category:Media in Minorca" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Media in Minorca. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Media in Minorca redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 19:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Just a thought that using
AfC notification: Draft:William Y. Pemberton has a new comment
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at
Draft:William Y. Pemberton. Thanks!
KylieTastic (
talk) 15:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The article says Ellis is in Ellis County. Did the counties change? TuThe counties do seem to border each other. Maybe he was born outside Ellis? I don't know. FloridaArmy ( talk) 23:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello: thanks for your message. I'm following the Manual of Style: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes section 9.9.2.1, I think. I use –, I think it creates similar spacing as – , although I find that – doesn't center the dash in the published version when I use it... (at least when I look at it). I hope this helps. Thanks for all of your work, by the way. :) -- FeanorStar7 ( talk) 10:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC) The Laurel Coppock article has been updated and released for publication. It is our hope that it will not be deleted as it has in the past. I'm not sure what to do with the draft article Draft:Laurel Coppock, which still exists. Many Thanks for your help! Truthanado ( talk) 15:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Are IPs allowed to vote? Just a question. The4lines |||| ( You Asked?) ( What I have Done.) 18:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Good evening, the last time I had to have recourse to the page List of translations of the Paschal greeting, there was no advice that it should be deleted. So, why did you delete this page ? How can it be rebuilt, or at least how can I have access to the data, to place them (for example) in the article "paschal greetings" (which, I hope, you do not intend to delete also...)? From France. Albocicade ( talk) 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for your message and I hope all is well with you. Apologies for the upset caused with the page moves, this was not my intention so please accept my wholehearted apologies for any disruption or inconvenience caused. The template pages appeared to suggest the page was within a series of common law legal systems and not a comparative discussion of property law across common law, civilian, hybrid, islamic, hindu legal systems. On reflection, I appreciate the page is more comparative in its objective, which understandably, because the page is English speaking is primarily a discussion of common law property regimes and adopts their terms. I am new to wikipedia editing so finding the policies is difficult but thank you for the references, I will note them before making any further changes. As you will know, I have been trying to update and expand the Scots law sections of wiki, primarily Scots property law which shares a common heritage with common-law jurisdictions in many respects due to Roman law. This work eventually led me to looking at the Roman law pages on wiki which led me to the main pages on property and there are phrases and terms that are commonly used across different legal systems. I would be quite interested to try and help improve the main property pages, once I have finished the substantive Scots pages, to help diversify the main pages so it is more comparative if you wanted to discuss further? With best wishes, Kentigern1136 ( talk) 12:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, Thank you for getting back to me so promptly! I appreciate this is not a matter between you and I, my apologies if the wording of my previous message indicated that. I just meant in terms of whether you would like to enter into a discussion on the talk page concerning this, as I'm keen to know the rest of the community's opinion on this, or is there a more appropriate forum to discuss openly and engage such as the WikiProject? I am still concerned the property law mainpages are too integrated into common law legal system discussions due to the property law template itself specifically referencing "Part of the common law series". Of course as you say a comparative edits to the mainpages are probably the best solution here to this due to the shared Roman law heritage but I may raise this on the sidebar template itself to discuss further as I feel a comparative approach is more appropriate than the current common-law dominated discussion. However, Scots law wikipedia pages are in a sorry state at present so I don't think I'll be raising my head above the parapet for the foreseeable future; the perks of a small jurisdiction! These matters were no doubt discussed in the days of old by the architects of the legal pages but I still feel revisiting the classification of these pages in light of the heavy common-law influences on the pages may be beneficial in an effort to provide clarity and guidance where a reader is trying to identify the lex situs. My primary concern is a layman reading the pages from a non common-law jurisdiction. Alas, if only there was a Hague Convention on Property law! I'll try start a discussion on the WikiProject in furtherance of this as would like to know other people's thoughts on this. But in the meantime, again thank you for the help and guidance, it is very much appreciated and again, my sincerest apologies for inconveniencing you and for overstepping the mark. Best wishes, Kentigern1136 ( talk) 19:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Since you're the blocking admin for Crash your car will cure coronaviirus!! as a vandalism-only account, I thought I should give you a heads-up that I opened an SPI case request into that user, as I strongly suspect them to be a cross-wiki long term abuser based on past behavior and recent edits. It can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BMX On WheeIs. OhKayeSierra ( talk) 23:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, re [ this RFC close]. Since you closed it, the RFC has been templated as having been disrupted by a now banned sock. Would it change your closing statement at all? Thanks. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
On 19 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Please, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in some situations, saying " please" may yield worse outcomes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Please. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Please), 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.
I didn't see your proposal until today, and it appears moot, but I thought it was worth exploring. I don't work in that area, so my opinion is non particularly well-informed (as respects the process_ but I concur that the problem is real, and worth addressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Will you please reconsider your close here? The creator who clearly has a COI moving it to draftspace on their own volition is not really how AFD works in my opinion and there was a clear consensus to delete, not indefinitely incubate spam in draft space. :/ Praxidicae ( talk) 11:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Perry L. Owsley has been accepted
Perry L. Owsley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now
create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to
Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic ( talk) 17:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel like I'm being unfairly threatened with sanctions by administrator MelanieN at Talk:Donald_Trump#"Personal_image"_subsection;_change_to_Consensus_item_39. I know that you were a supporter in the relevant RfC, but I'm not canvassing you into the discussion about the content; I'm contacting you because I hope you'll see that my repeated requests for clarification are reasonable and not badgering (at least not intentionally). Maybe I'm bad at asking questions or I have poor reading comprehension, but I feel like we're dealing with a very lawyerly issue here which requires tremendous precision. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Nawab Afridi ( talk) 17:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Being a moderator, you always checked my page List of Pakistani Peace Laureates and fixed the errors every time (for which I am always thankful to you but today I just checked my page and have found some other moderator removing the descriptions and ruining my entire page. All my efforts and struggle have been ruined.
I'm concerned that your proposal of a 6-month "automatic ban" relating to the US elections has been stated in a preliminary format that is not likely to result in a useful outcome. The problem with the American Politics articles has been lack of enforcement, not lack of tools or principles. All of the disruptive behaviors that plague these articles every election season are already block/ban eligible per site norms, Admin powers, and Arbcom DS provisions. What's been difficult has been the enforcement. Admins tend to shy away from routine patrolling and exercise of their authority. Enforcement actions become personalized or politicized when they are taken to a noticeboard. In short, I think the wording "automatic 6-month ban" begs the question, because there is no automatic mechanism or process on WP. It would be very constructive and most welcome if you have some ideas as to how the kind of order-keeping you envision could be made operational. I'm afraid the comments at ANI are going to focus on the goal, which is not controversial, while failing to come up with robust modes of enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer. Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer. To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process! Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Would you please take a look at YeetusThefeetus192737 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Apparently they're bored and decided to entertain themselves by demonstrating their maturity to us. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to revoke talk page access for them, too? Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 13:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Good day, I am writing to discuss the un-deletion of the Canon EOS Digital cameras and Nikon DSLR cameras comparison pages. Pages for specific Nikon cameras and Canon Cameras exist, so why can the comparison of them not? They all interconnected, to the model, to the processor, etc. For the few notations listed in the deletion review, there was not much discussion. It took an afternoon without much reasoning and both were deleted, pages that had years of information on them. "Possible fancraft" & "Wikipedia is not a Consumer Reports" are not what these pages are about at all. Just noting the word "possible" means it really was not vetted enough. The comparison chart does not show which is better, it shows the specifications, it shows the history of a large part of the camera industry in the last few decades. It shows the technological advancement of the two largest manufacturers and anyone studying photography, optics, motors, batteries, etc would find this information useful. "Wikipedia is a compendium of the world's knowledge." Taken from the main page of Wikipedia. These two pages summarize that phrase exactly. If there are errors on the pages, I am sure that there are enough photographers out there willing to pinch in and update them. By far, the camera, is one of this century's largest advancements. Having their history preserved and perhaps far better linked to the Technology and the Arts pages on Wikipedia would be far better than deleting them. They are not just devices, but they are tools that create art, by frame, and in films. They have created, and are still creating, our history. Reading that other technology item pages may also be deleted, would also erase the history of those devices. At a time when technology is advancing so rapidly, it won't be long before the old are forgotten and the history deleted. You are doing a large dis-service by deleting them and should instead be creating a history of technology. Sincerely Kiddl Kiddl ( talk) 04:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I just saw your mention of topic bans for sock puppetry in the 2020 candidates arena. There is an account I have been suspicious of and am wondering what the requirements are for looking into whether an account is indeed a sock. The account has been very much an SPA and their first day they sounded as if they’d been here a decade, including phrases like “what we do here at Wikipedia...”. I’ve never dealt with a possible sock before besides ignoring them, but this one is exceedingly active in the most controversial areas. Thank you for your help, petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Harold R. Fatzer has been accepted
Harold R. Fatzer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now
create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to
Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic ( talk) 16:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC) |