User:BD2412/Archive 036

Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015 016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030 031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045 046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057 Break Have a good break.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Donald Gary Young I see you are on a Wikibreak, but reaching out with this since you may find it of note. I pinged you in the discussion but looks like an editor reached out to everyone I pinged except for you so thought I would make sure everyone was notified. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I will look at it within the next few days. bd2412 T 02:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Climate change in... drafts I noticed that 50 "Climate change in..." drafts of yours from mid-2017 seem G13 eligible. You've historically made some minor edits to skip the auto-tag but haven't this time around. Is that because you're away or do you mean to let them go by the wayside? If the former, no worries, but maybe it'd be easier to move them all to userspace so you don't have to do the song and dance? Just a thought. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Just to give you a heads up, there are a fair number of drafts at Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts that appear to be stuff that you are working on if you are interested in keeping them around. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC) I think I have handled everything of interest, thanks. bd2412 T 02:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 special circular Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security View additional information Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA. This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks. My Wikimedia password is unique to this website, and is long and random. bd2412 T 23:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular) ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community. Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised. We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered. For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) I am aware of the intent. bd2412 T 21:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Prespa Barnstar Thank you for your hard work on with the 2019 Macedonia Name RFC. We finally rewrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and we could not have done it without your service on the closing panel for the RFC. Thank you, BD2412. I am glad to have had the great pleasure to work with you! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) URGENT! user:2600:1017:B80F:B7C3:FC25:A670:814E:22EF is making terroristic threats. CLCStudent (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC) This appears to have been addressed. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Your draft article, Draft:Arrogance Hello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Arrogance". 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 {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code. 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. Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC) External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages Hello BD, I'm contacting to ask whether you'd be interested in updating the Concurrent use registration article (or any page you've worked on) and submitting it for external, academic peer review. The WikiJournal of Humanities (www.wikijhum.org) couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, they are a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing. The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC) I think that the article most useful for this process would be Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. bd2412 T 11:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Wow, that is a thorough article. I agree that it looks very appropriate. If you decide to go ahead and submit it for ext peer review, feel free to let me know if anything in the WP:WAN page is unclear, we tried to build it analogously to WP:FAC. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Do you have a time frame in mind for this? I have a project tomorrow which will take up most of my day and part of the next. bd2412 T 23:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the disambiguation I'll be more careful with citations using that source in the future. Some IP editor undid both my edits on Sensenbrenner, which you had disambiguated, rather quickly. I undid their edits a moment ago. They had never edited any article before. I expect it might be a banned editor paid to scrub the subject's article. Should the page be protected? Activist (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC) No problem. I'll have a look at the page, but usually protection is not needed unless a problem persists. bd2412 T 00:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Jain Agamas Hello. I see that Jain Agamas has become a dab again. As you dealt with it last time, I've not interfered in case I make things worse. Beware that Jain Agamas(Śvētāmbara) is an article but Jain Agamas (Śvētāmbara) with the space is a redirect to dab. Certes (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I'll have a look at the incoming links within the next few days. bd2412 T 00:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks. Several paragraphs are duplicated between the two articles so perhaps they should be merged, with a clear section on each and redirects to those sections for incoming links, but I don't know the subject area well enough to judge. Topics which look similar to an outsider can seem significantly different to followers. Certes (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I have somewhat the same concern. However, even then the disambiguation page might serve better as a set index or BCA. bd2412 T 11:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Warp drive (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Warp drive (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Warp drive (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I have commented there. bd2412 T 12:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Mary Poppins (disambiguation) Why was the redirect from Mary Poppins (disambiguation) to the DAB page at the base name deleted (and Talk:Mary Poppins (disambiguation) left behind) instead of being categorized as an {{R to disambiguation page}}? Best, Sam Sailor 04:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC) The article is no longer a disambiguation page at all, and therefore has no need for a "foo (disambiguation)" redirect. bd2412 T Alexandra Phillips MEP and Alexandra Phillips MEP Hello. I noticed you'd edited a page on a newly elected UK MEP who could be confused with one with an identical name. I think some of the disambiguation issues have been resolved, but there is a question of titling one or both pages. I'd like to invite you to comment at Talk:Alexandra L. Phillips#Title_of_article_-_proposed_move. --Cedderstk 21:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC) I have no opinion on the matter, thanks. bd2412 T 20:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Alexander Rahbari Thank you for moving Ali Rahbari to Alexander Rahbari following my request at Talk:Alexander Rahbari#Requested move 17 May 2019. (My IP address has changed since then, but I was 92.41.104.184.) Unfortunately this move has created a problem. There are lots of pages with links still pointing to the old name. Would it be possible to recreate Ali Rahbari as a redirect to Alexander Rahbari so that all the old links will work again? Best wishes, --188.30.63.35 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)  Done bd2412 T 20:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Category:Time travelers in film has been nominated for discussion Category:Time travelers in film, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I have replied in that discussion. bd2412 T 20:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC) ¬ listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ¬. Since you had some involvement with the ¬ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks. My involvement with this redirect was limited to a gnoming template fix. I have no opinion on the matter under discussion. bd2412 T 20:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Nomination of Health of Donald Trump for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Health of Donald Trump 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/Health of Donald Trump 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. GMGtalk 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks. I have no interest in participating in the discussion at this time. bd2412 T 20:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Tagging I see that you appropriately tagged a SPA, but perhaps you missed this one? Atsme Talk 📧 00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I tagged the IP specifically because it did not begin editing Wikipedia at all until June 7, which was after this particular discussion was initiated on June 6. This suggests that the editor behind it is a sockpuppet from which editing was initiated specifically for the purpose of voting in this discussion. Perhaps I should have been more direct and tagged it as a likely sockpuppet. Dallbat is a low-participation editor with an obvious focus, but has been editing for well over a year, and therefore is far less likely to have been created for purposes of participating in this discussion. bd2412 T 00:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC) But the edit history tells a different story. Atsme Talk 📧 00:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Does something in that edit history suggest to you that this account was not created until after June 6, 2019? bd2412 T 01:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, (a) it matters not when it was created, (b) what matters is why it was created, and (c) if you cannot see a red flag in the edit history, which comprises 2 articles, then there is nothing more for me to say here except thank you for your consideration. Atsme Talk 📧 01:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Editors are allowed to have a singular focus, although it is certainly not the best practice. What they are not allowed to do is pop up for the first time as IP accounts for the likely purpose of engaging in sockpuppetry in discussions. I've been an admin long enough to have an eye for that when it does come up. bd2412 T 01:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Thank you, duly noted. Atsme Talk 📧 01:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Cheers float Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:Rosguill}} Looks like we don't actually have a wine wikilove template set up...at any rate, thanks for the suggestion to turn House wine into an article and the sources signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Many thanks, and good work putting the article together! bd2412 T 00:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC) AWB edit summary error? I see a bunch of edit summaries getting truncated or otherwise messed up, for example at 21st century - One-time conversion of links from moved articles to improve ease of automated parsing., replaced: [[United States presidential election, 201 → [[201 United States presidential election (2), United States presidential election6| → 6 United State Tag: AWB. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Since I'm moving dates from the end of the link to the beginning, I'm using a two step process, so for a 2016 election it moves the "201" first, and then the "6"; this reduces the total number of operations that need to be programmed, because there are 23 decades, and five possible final numbers, rather than all ~60 elections that have occurred at this level. bd2412 T 03:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC) So you're really doing two replacements, with the intermediate one being a link to 201 United States presidential election 6??? I suppose that works ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC) It's all in the same edit. AWB just thinks it's making two substitutions. I think I can actually disable the reporting of that part of the edit. bd2412 T 03:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Can you use a regex for the year, like "Foo, ([12]\d{3})" → "$1 Foo"? Certes (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Perhaps, but my method is doing the job - I'm not replacing years with something else, but moving them to the other end of the line. bd2412 T 13:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Thank you BD for fixing the edit summary issue, but seperate concern: when should I expect your name to stop appearing my watchlist? Are you almost done with this current AWB task? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 90% of the way there. bd2412 T 18:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  Done bd2412 T 19:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) RFPP Would you please consider actioning this request - FlightTime (open channel) 19:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Well, maybe they've stopped. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Deletion of Articles (non-relevant) Why are these pages allowed on Wikipedia. What is the relevance? If they are allowed then I guess there are so many youtubers and bureaucrats whose articles should be created on Wikipedia. Why shouldn't these be removed under (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11) Prajakta Koli , Sejal Kumar , Bhuvan Bam and Muhammad Ashraf Bukhari etc ... wiseking 07:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmalik007 (talk • contribs) Any editor, yourself included, can nominate articles for deletion by following the process described at WP:AFD. bd2412 T 14:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Close of RM at Alliaria petiolata Hey there, I was wondering if you could elaborate on your close at Talk:Alliaria_petiolata#Requested_move_6_June_2019. You wrote that "Consensus is clearly against this proposal", but there were 2 users supporting the move and 3 opposing. If we take it for granted that all recommendations were logical and policy-based, then given a 60-40 ratio and a small sample size, wouldn't that be more like "No consensus"? Or did you find that the arguments for moving were not policy-based? Colin M (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Are you counting yourself as one of the 2 users supporting the proposal? It is clear that the proposal, once made, drew more opposition than support. bd2412 T 20:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I'm counting myself. I thought it was assumed that the nominator supported the move (unless they say they're nominating on someone else's behalf or something). Colin M (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC) I have modified my close slightly. bd2412 T 22:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) on Reagan article about Iran-Contra Hi, You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?" Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C Thanks, FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC) template:DTS move disaster Your move of template:DTS just now has messed up all the list-tables indexed by List of RHPs, e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in San Miguel County, New Mexico. So in effect it is a disaster of sorts, a very disruptive action for the moment. Could you please move it back right away, and sort out corrections later? --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Move undone - I did not know that modules couldn't redirect. You learn something new every day. bd2412 T 04:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker) yeah, that's why I've just skipped the module moves when looking at elapsed discussions to close. I think there is a way to create a "redirect" module, but I can't remember where I saw it --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I have reverted my closure of the move discussion and relisted the proposal. bd2412 T 04:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC) @BD2412: Found it: Module:WD --DannyS712 (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC) You might want to note that in the template talk page discussion; as I have relisted the discussion, it is likely that it will be closed by a different admin when the new period of discussion has elapsed. bd2412 T 04:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Your close of Navseasoncats I'd appreciate if you could re-read the thread. In particular, see Fayenatic London comment from 18:39, 25 May 2019 where he proposed using "sequence" in response to Tom.Reding suggestion of {{Category series navigation}}, which after Tom supported {{Category sequence navigation}} and I myself did as well. That is 3 people supporting the same option out of the 6 people in that discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Three people supporting an option out of six people in the discussion does not constitute a consensus. bd2412 T 20:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Considering 3 supported one option, another supported a rename (and might have supported that option as well), and 2 supported leaving it as is, that at least is a valid reason for a re-list to garner final input, as the clear majority of editors (75%) supported a rename. Leaving it as a stale discussion for (at least) 15 days just so one editor who dislikes renaming modules can oppose for that reason and then close as a "no consensus" smells as a bad faith close at its best. --Gonnym (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC) The discussion had already been relisted once. We don't relist perpetually until you get the result you want. If you still feel the template should be moved, after waiting for an appropriate amount of time, you are free to attempt to write a more convincing proposal. bd2412 T 20:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Seeking an admin's opinion Do you really think a grand debate and consensus is needed to fix a simple formatting issue? Ribbet32 (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Resolved with common sense. bd2412 T 04:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Possible WP:G4 issues Is there a forum where possible WP:G4 issues can be raised? It seems a waste of time to do the research needed for a WP:AFD proposal if an article should be speedied, which needs admin eyes and tools. WP:ANI doesn't look the best place either. All the background to this question is at User talk:SpacemanSpiff#Biju Sopanam (Actor) (issue raised 19 June 2019). You can doubtless see what rang my alarm bells. Narky Blert (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC) The current article has twice as many references as the last deleted version, and lists additional films. Whether that is sufficient to support notability is an open question (I have not examined the references in that much depth), but I think it is different enough that a separate AfD discussion could reasonably be warranted. bd2412 T 00:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I have moved the article back to Biju Sopanam and captured and restored the edit history of the other two titles, so it is now possible to see the changes. bd2412 T 00:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks for your help. Now that you've shown it isn't a G4, I'll leave it at that. I only AFD articles which annoy me on their face (and not always then). Based on what turns up in Disambiguation pages with links, I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of articles about Indian cinema fail GNG for lack of RS; and life's too short. Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Kip Smith Hello, Checking if your closure was a mistake? Overwhelming support to keep the article and you closed as delete without leaving a rationale. Thanks Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 02:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry, slight disconnect between by brain and my fingers there. Yes, I intended to close it as kept. bd2412 T 02:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Plural PT I'm quite surprised that at Talk:Ravens#Requested move 10 May 2019 we had the argument that Baltimore Ravens gets more views than the bird and that the plural term could "arguably be a primaryredirect to the American football team" (by User:Dohn joe) yet at Talk:Cairns (disambiguation) it was argued that the city was primary per PLURALPT despite the fact that the stack gets more views. This doesn't make sense, as you noted "Baltimore Ravens" is a PTM for "Ravens" but as I noted the stack is a full match for "Cairns" even if WP:PLURAL specifies articles generally use the plural. One could easily support both moves (like you did) or at least support one and oppose one (like Paintspot did) but opposing both doesn't seem to serve users well or is based on policy. You're argument here is interesting, if we did use plurals for objects (and similar) we can be fairly sure that the OS wouldn't be primary for Windows (likely the part of a building would be) and that either Apple would be a DAB or the company would be at the base name. Interestingly if I Google Ravens I do get the WP article Raven first (as with site:wikipedia.org Ravens) but I also get Ipswich Ravens Volleyball Club come up. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC) I am actually more interested in historical significance than I am in page views for recently adopted meanings. Windows is an interesting case, but the volleyball club in Ipswich is named for the bird, so they should know that their use will invoke the bird. bd2412 T 19:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)