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)
Think I corrected all of them. Yikes. Home Lander (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the only missing page is Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019, which is deleted currently. Not sure where exactly it has ended up. Home Lander (talk) 02:18, 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)
I'm aware of the reasoning. At the time that I filed the AfD, I was unable to find any secondary sources confirming that the subject had been a state legislator at all. A source for that has since been added. BD2412T 21:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
On 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)
Thanks for the update! BD2412T 18:11, 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)
There is no process for deletion of a recreation of AfD-deleted content. It's WP:G4, even if the old content is posted under a new name. BD2412T 19:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It was premature in 2019. It's not premature in 2020. That rhetoric works for a clear non notable topic but now that there's more titles for that year it can exist. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have refunded it to draft, but it is still a fork of Draft:2022 in film, and should not proceed to mainspace unless that draft also proceeds to mainspace. BD2412T 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
An 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)
No, I started from scratch. I have seen that, and grabbed the succession box from it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll move it mainspace now and you can finish it there. Cheers! BD2412T 18:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid that. I've overwritten what you did :/ If you have any suggestions for updates, I'm happy for them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The entire point of having drafts is so that they can be finished in draft and then moved to mainspace. BD2412T 18:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course. That works for many people. I tend not to use draft space, and prefer developing articles directly. When I publish to article space, the article is as complete as I have been able to make them (example). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 5 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).
The disambiguation page covers all of these confusingly close variations. Feel free to change it back, if you'd like. I won't argue the point. BD2412T 17:36, 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)
The fact that sources pointed to gave positive reviews of the company or its products does not disqualify those sources, or inherently demonstrate a lack of independence. Sometimes companies make products that are, in fact, well reviewed. We certainly have no policy in Wikipedia to only keep entities about whom negative things are said. BD2412T 16:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the context of what you just said relative to this AfD. Who mentioned anything about sources posting positive reviews? None of the !votes (keep or delete) said anything like that. I analysed all the sources and posted an analysis focused on those references posted into the AfD. That analysis pointed out why each reference failed the criteria for establishing notability relative to policies/guidelines, so that others could follow the reasoning as to why they failed and to allow them to argue or provide reasons why they should be accepted. Nobody rejected the reasoning nor provided a rebuttal - which is the reason why I'd hoping you can provide an explanation for closing as you did. Thank you. HighKing++ 18:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, your analysis in the deletion discussion, which I presume continues to be your position, is that there was an absence of sources that meet the criteria for inclusion. A major thrust of your evaluation was that the sources were not independent because they appeared to reflect company PR (i.e., saying positive things about the company and/or its products). Other editors proposed that there were such sources, and pointed to a number of them, some of which were disputed, while others were not. For example, the review in the Bicycle magazine article, "The Best E-Bikes You Can Buy Right Now", addresses two different models by this manufacturer at reasonable length, and in the second generalizes characteristics of the model to the company as a whole ("the visibly sturdy build Benno bikes are known for, the bold and clean welds, the uncomplicated frame design"). When determining whether discussion of a subject is substantial, I use a common-sense copyright rule of thumb: if I were to copy everything that the article says about the subject into a Wikipedia article, would that constitute a copyright infringement? For fleeting mentions, it would not. For the degree of coverage in the cited source, it clearly would. I don't know that I would have voted to keep the article, had I participated in the discussion (I probably would have proposed the middle ground of moving to draft for expansion), but in closing the discussion I found that those voting to keep were reasonably supported by the evidence cited. Of course, it makes no difference to the future of the article whether the close is "keep" or "no consensus"; any editor can nominate it for deletion in the future on the same grounds, on the basis that consensus can change. BD2412T 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, this explanation still doesn't make sense. Here's why. First off, Keep editors proposed that there were sources before I posted at all. After, I posted and pointed out that the sources failed to meet the criteria for establishing notability and provided specific analysis on those sources posted in the AfD (as these were the ones proposed to be the best. After I posted the analysis, not one Keep !voter posted an alternative view or alternative references nor rebutted the analysis. The second point concerns your logic in relation to this reference you posted above which has nothing in-depth to say, at all, about the company and that reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Not only that but not one of the Keep !voters used that argument. Also, since the article topic is the company and not one of their products (and as per WP:NCORP) then even if one of the products were notable in its own right, the company still is not since it does not inherit notability. Your explanation also talks about copyright but this is not an argument that was made at AfD and I do not understand the relevance here. There's a difference between using reliable sources for the purposes of supporting facts and assertions within an article and a much higher bar for articles to establish notability. So finally, you say that you found that those voting !Keep were "reasonably supported by the evidence cited" and this is the bit that I am seeking an explanation. In light of what I've said above, what precise evidence did they put forward that was so convincing that you believed it was clearly a Keep close? And I have found that opening a new AfD where the previous one was closed as Keep is frowned upon to the point of being accused of disruptive behaviour, hence my initial request to understand why is wasn't *at least* a "no consensus" close (and based on the lack of sourcing that meets the criteria for establishing notability, it should have been closed as Delete). HighKing++ 20:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Dream Focus specifically referenced this source in his vote, and 7&6=thirteen commented in support of that reference. Participation in the discussion after that point (and after substantial improvement to the article by 7&6=thirteen) indicated a substantial trend towards a preference for keeping. Of course, you are free to take this WP:DRV if you would like to seek a consensus to change the close from "keep" to "no consensus", although this will functionally have the same outcome. BD2412T 20:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Dream Focus did the equivalent of a WP:GHITS by merely pointing out this magazine as a reliable source that gave them significant coverage but did not point to a specific reference from that magazine. I can see you are not happy to switch to a "no consensus" which is very disheartening for editors that put in a lot of time researching the references and pointing out why they fail. It is also pretty easy to manipulate a consensus when you have 4 active members of the Article Rescue Squad !voting in unison without putting forward any specific reasons other than vague references to policies or sniping at editors that disagree with them. I will take this to DRV for additional input. HighKing++ 13:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Note I gave a link to the coverage in question. Perhaps if you really put in "a lot of time researching the references" linked to you would've noticed that. I believe it is "very disheartening" for you to actually waste time whining that you didn't get the result you want, then dragging the argument elsewhere. DreamFocus 04:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I consider the discussion of this matter here closed, given that it is now at WP:DRV. BD2412T 04:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign - protection of articleedit
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)
This is a common-sense step. The article is already automatically under discretionary sanctions due to its status as a high-profile political article, and this protection is consistent with that which we have typically given to such articles during highly contested elections. Is there any question that it will be the target of vandalism and edit warring through the beginning of November? BD2412T 14:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
There are less extreme measures that could have been taken. Has this been discussed anywhere? If not, where could this be discussed? BeŻet (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The protection level has now been reduced. Cheers! BD2412T 20:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
An 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)
I have done so. Cheers! BD2412T 04:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
I have not seen this done before, but I don't see anything inherently impermissible about it. BD2412T 20:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Haifa 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)
My only involvement with this article was to delete a link to another article. However, I note that a source is provided in the article for the subject's age as reported there. If you can find a source for a different date of birth, you'll want to note this at Talk:Haifa Wehbe. BD2412T 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
As expected, this has been resolved in favor of my actions, which were proper. Cheers! BD2412T 04:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Which is why most of what you did got reverted and a new line got added to WP:SPA saying not to do what you did... PackMecEng (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There's no spinning this: I tagged an SPA as an SPA, and it was found to be correct and appropriate to identify the editor as such. Nothing added to WP:SPA says otherwise. I'd have done the same if the editor was arguing to keep some non-notable Instagram model or the like. The fact that the closer is considering a WP:DUCK block of that editor is also instructive. BD2412T 04:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no interest in arguing with you, the discussion speaks for itself. Have a good night. PackMecEng (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: The SPA in question has now been indefblocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. However, it is likely that they will return under another name. We should therefore be cautious of newly appearing editors with similar patterns of behavior. BD2412T 19:48, 22 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? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It's so that when I look at the "What links here" for my user page and talk page, I don't see a morass of ancient XfD discussions. I suppose I could provide a more detailed explanation on the subpage, though I doubt anyone will ever look at those links in the future (except, of course, in this particular circumstance). The edits don't change any visible aspect of the discussions involved. BD2412T 04:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I have made the target pages redirects to my user page and talk page, with a line of explanation for anyone who actually wants to see what's on that page. If that suffices, I'll go back to the signature fixes. I'll work through the 10+ year-old discussions first, though. BD2412T 19:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
What i showed up here for, too (see my posting below). User:Rhododendrites' point non-essential editing is simply not done. BD2412, could you please take a temporary injunction / stop, and maybe discuss here or maybe help find our way to the proper forum about this? I pretty much hate ANI and would prefer not to go there. --Doncram (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
objection to touching, editing long-closed archivesedit
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)
There are thousands, since I have been doing this since around 2008. However, these edits do not change any dates, nor do they make any outwardly visible change to the discussion at all. They basically only affect what I see when I search for links to my own user and talk pages. This is, of course, much less of an issue for the typical editor, who will not have thousands and thousands of links to these pages. BD2412T 03:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Not okay; really not okay to go to thousands of closed archives; i responded at parallel discussion section to which you merged my separate discussion, while u were merging i guess. Asking there for you to stop at least temporarily. Sounds like u are convinced this is okay, and are going to continue? --Doncram (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, no one had objected to this point (Rhododendrites merely asked out of curiosity). It is not my intention to do anything disruptive to the project, and I'm fine stopping to discuss, but I would not consider these edits to be pointless. They organize incoming links to make it easier for me to put my finger on things when they come up. I would also note that I have made about 3,800 of these changes over the years (only a few hundred have been made recently), and as far as I can tell there are about 2,250 remaining deletion discussions containing my signature. If I were to stop, this would leave a somewhat awkward split between the old links and the new. If piping through the subpage is impermissible (though I have no reason to believe that it is), I would then prefer to undo all the changes that have already been made. BD2412T 04:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Mass edits don't bother me as much as some others, but both (a) mass edits to old discussions, and (b) making thousands of identical edits are things that [at least in every case I've seen] there's an expectation of finding consensus beforehand (and/or even setting a bot task). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I would have no objection to setting a bot to the task, although I prefer to do it manually just to put eyes on the edits. BD2412T 04:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pausing. You just are lucky or unfortunate or something to have gotten as far as you have. I am quite sure this is not okay. Not for you to do 2,250 more edits, nor for you to go back and make 3,800 more changes again for your own purposes. This is purely for your own sake somehow, for your tidying up some perspective you want to have about your personal involvement in those AFDs, or effectively to sort them somehow so some personal category or list or whatever in your space works nicely for you. Perhaps/probably it would be okay for you to make a big table of all the AFDs's names in a page in your own userspace and for you to characterize/label them any which way you want in one or more extra columns, and for you to sort them or organize them any way you want, despite those edits not contributing to Wikipedia or anyone besides yourself. But it is not okay to be doing this to closed AFDs. Like I said above, I too would kinda like to make edits in a bunch of closed AFDs for my own personal organizing type reasons, and so would lots of editors probably. It may or may not change how AFDSTATS or other systems work with them, but it confounds, at least, the apparent closure of these in search results and directory views. It certainly would be popping up on 2,250 times 5 or so AFD participants = more than 10,000 watchlist changes. Every touch by you or me or anyone else raises issues: is the edit self-serving somehow? does it change the interpretation of the AFD? is it someone choosing to fix their own spelling errors to look better somehow, or to fix wording so that it says what they meant more clearly? Is is to generate publicity, to remind lots of others of an editor being involved, say like advertising for their RFA? It is not okay for all of us or any of us to inflict this upon others, to raise questions of everyone making many go back and check. You just cannot do that. If any of this was okay, there would have to be guidance about what kinds of changes are allowed and not allowed, and some process to approve or disapprove of such editing campaigns, and there is no such mechanism AFAIK, and this just doesn't and shouldn't come up. It's possible I could be completely wrong with these strong-ish statements I am making, but I think not.
I am not an administrator and I don't make the rules, and I am not exactly sure where this guidance is decreed in writing; I am really quite sure it is enshrined in practice and wide understanding. Right now, I think it would be okay for you to just stop and we could not bring it up further. (Hmm, like trying to sweep it under the rug, but even that would be wrong in some ways, like allowing/encouraging anyone to do whatever they want and win by fait accompli. I dunno if it can just be ignored.) Is it possible to ask one or two respected very experienced persons' advice? Or this can be brought up and discussed in some big forum, for many to see and for you or me to be educated about how wrong we are or not. If you're not proceeding, then that big forum is not ANI, thank goodness. Would it be wp:BOTREQUESTS? Where numerous experienced editors do chime in about proposals to make mass changes. Or some other bot policy or mass changes guideline page?
About going backwards and fixing/removing these changes, I don't know if it is feasible for oversight to be used to remove them and restore original dating of any one of them...i don't really know how oversight works. If oversight seems to work to reverse one of these, maybe possibly-however-unlikely oversight can be done by a bot to reverse all this; but getting that would probably be a pretty big ask and would be pretty embarrassing to have to ask, i think. --Doncram (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
User:BD2412, you are quite decent to be direct and clear with the numbers and situation. I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness. One nagging thing for me, I should say, is that relatively recently I've noticed edits have apparently been made in archives of wp:ANI, confounding results of searches there, because ancient stuff was dated recently. This undermines my confidence a bit now, because i would have thought that should not happen. Any suggestions whom/where to ask for guidance now? --Doncram (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, Help:Archiving_a_talk_page, while not directly addressing this, mentions in passing: "Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion." --Doncram (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Searching for "after closure" brings up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Calkin, with "Notwithstanding the instructions to not edit an AFD after closure (in this case 3+ years ago), I ....".
Template:Archive produces: "This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page."
Here it is: Every(?) closed AFD has at its top: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." With " Please do not modify it." bolded and in red letters. --Doncram (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I have not modified anything in the content of the discussions themselves, nor do I have any intent to do so. BD2412T 15:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Sez you. And it raises issues, imposes costs, and brings attention to yourself. Scrutiny would not be favorable, especially as there already exist ways to do what you want, without imposing any costs (see below). --Doncram (talk) 16:32, 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. PamD 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 am going to hold off on further changes until I can gain a consensus that this is not in violation of policy, but I can definitely arrange to have the changes made by a bot if they are deemed permissible. BD2412T 15:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Good about holding off. Technically yes if you got consensus approval to do something strange, then you would have gotten consensus approval to do that strange thing. But you wouldn't get that. If a bot were going to be run just for your purposes alone, it shouldn't edit 6,000 closed pages, it should instead add more value for yourself by a different approach (e.g. to produce a table in your userspace that can do more). And if basically some report was being created for you, it would be better that be a tool available to serve others too.
However there are better ways to do whatever you want, already and I think you don't need any special bot runs or new reports. In general there are tools already for everything; to find them you just have to ask at wp:HELP or the Village pump, or maybe ask followers at your own talk page. If really no existing tool works, like how I myself have some complaints about wp:AFDSTATS reporting about my AFDs, then you or I should ask for refinement of that, not create something idiosyncratice.
You can already get pretty much exactly what you hoped for. What you want is to browse in "what links here", without that being cluttered by AFDs, right? Well 1) click on "what links here", 2) for "namespace", select "Wikipedia", 3) click on "Invert selection", and 4) hit "Go".
That excludes about 10,000 pages in Wikipedia-space that link to you (about 10 pages, 500 results per page), of which apparently about 6,000 are your AFDs. If you're browsing this way, probably just browsing in each namespace, one at a time, would be better.
I take it you were not aware of how "what links here" can be usefully refined. I wasn't, myself, until recently.--Doncram (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doncram: Were you under the impression that AfDs were the only source of incoming links from the Wikipedia space? To be clear, I have thousands of incoming links from other project-space pages, which are far more useful for me to be able to see than the additional thousands of XfD links. BD2412T 17:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm with SmokeyJoe and the others. Editing an archive for something that pertains only to the user, that's not cool, esp. not if done thousands of times. I'm trying to imagine what all you could do, how many GA reviews you could do, instead of that. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, I am not part of the group that does GA reviews. What I do, generally, is to create and improve content. With all due respect, you can criticize the utility of my time when you surpass me in article creation. BD2412T 17:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? This is a pissing contest? a big dick contest? Sorry BD, but between experienced editors this is not an appropriate or useful remark. But if you want to go that route, your "useful edit count" should be diminished, at least, by 3850, and we should take off points for all the time editors here are wasting on this discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
My point is that this handful of edits is not a diminution of my time spent here. You could also be using your time better than participating in this discussion, which I am done with. BD2412T 17:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry this has devolved, no need for Drmies to be mentioning specific body parts. Sorry if I laid on too much, too. I do think that the approach i point out can work conveniently enough for you. If you want to see the Wikipedia-space pages, yes there are 4,000 or so, which you can browse within just 10 or so pages of 500-results each. Or maybe my numbers are off by a factor of 2? But it is not too much to go through, just ignoring the AFD ones. Or copying to a userspace page and deleting the AFD ones. Hope this helped. --Doncram (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I currently have 4,932 incoming links directly from Wikipedia space, and an additional 3,796 links piped through the redirect, a total of 8,728 incoming links just from that namespace. That is seventeen pages at 500 results per page, which is... not great to browse through when looking for one specific link. I suppose as an alternative I could set up subpages listing all of those links and organizing them by type. This would be more work for me to set up, but would not involve edits to the target pages. BD2412T 18:22, 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 believe I had read it as a contrast between certain votes for Outremer and uncertainty without solid support for any other option. I have relisted the discussion. BD2412T 15:36, 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)
Consensus for deletion was clearly established, and there was no further comment in the discussion for the last six days that it was open. This close was also consistent with the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras the same day. BD2412T 03:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Disagree, this happened too quickly for an article that has been updated for years. The Nikon article was also deleted too hastily and without justifiable cause. Digitect (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument to take to WP:DRV, with appropriate notification to User:JJMC89. BD2412T 03:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Digitect, well the lack of sources is one of the reasons I nominated it. All articles must pass WP:GNG, which requires at the very least third party sources.
Also, that article is a possible case of WP:FANCRUFT --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
BD2412 "Summary" is probably a better name for aggregating tables. Obviously the sources are implied from their constituent pages, although I might advocate a template that clarifies this. I seem to remember this table started ages ago on the actual EOS page but was broken out because of the size. These tables are uniform as much as they can be across manufacturers and editing styles, which is the opposite of WP:FANCRUFT. Digitect (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
As there is an ongoing WP:DRV discussion on this topic, there is no need for you to continue discussing the matter on my talk page. BD2412T 18:21, 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)
Yes, it is obvious that he has learned what has happened, but his learning what has happened is implied, rather than being shown in the movie. BD2412T 01:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but how does Lang know he experienced five hours? He doesn't look like he has a clock when he goes into the quantum realm, so it would be really hard for him to count five hours. Also, how would he have found about Thanos and the five years? Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. Those are handwaved in the movie, so not significant to present in the character bio. BD2412T 22:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Any ideas, though? If Lang doesn't experience five hours, then the Avengers are screwed because they can't come up with time travel. And isn't that a bad thing to just handwave things like that? (P.S I still don't know why Cap didn't die.)Mk8mlyb (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It already says in the article that Lang experienced five hours, and it's not our place to extrapolate an additional narrative to explain when he learned about things. BD2412T 20:43, 27 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. 😇 AtsmeTalk📧 15:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
No problem at all. Besides, it's still just a draft. Thanks again! BD2412T 16:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
An 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)
This redirect was created as part of the general administrative cleanup following a page rename. I have no particular interest in the outcome of the debate over "Media in" versus "Mass media in" categorizations. BD2412T 01:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Just a thought that using {{post-nominals}} as in X MBE for all those MBEs might be good. Cavrdg (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
It may be, but my aim was generally to fix the disambiguation links without disturbing the preferred presentation established by the original authors. Cheers! BD2412T 14:57, 1 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)
The obituary says he was a native of Trego County, so I just assumed Ellis was in Trego County. I note that the Montana Memory Project says that he was born "in Ellis, Erego County, Kansas", so the Ellis part may be wrong. BD2412T 00:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Often the name of the nearest town or city is given. Not sure how to handle it. But it's problematic to put the two together since they don't quite fit. I'm tempted to say near Ellis but that would be wishful / OR. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed the city and left the county, as it seems to be the best-sourced claim. BD2412T 02:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
I have merged the edit histories, as cut-and-paste moves are not allowed in Wikipedia. BD2412T 17:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I am not aware of any policy prohibiting IPs from voting in an RfA, but I doubt that a closing bureaucrat would give any weight to IP votes, unless perhaps it was vouched for as a long-term stable IP contributor. BD2412T 18:25, 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.
This was deleted pursuant to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of translations of the Paschal greeting. If the page is reproduced, it will likely be deleted again on that basis. The content was almost entirely unsourced, so there is no point in adding the unsourced material to another article. BD2412T 19:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
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?
This is not a matter between you and I. There is an entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Law that addresses matters like these. Please note that Wikipedia is a fairly mature project at this point. Decisions like the ones you propose have been settled a long time ago, by a substantial community, which must be addressed to make the sort of changes that you propose. That said, there is nothing wrong with adding worldwide perspectives to the Property law article, but it certainly should not be moved or split without a discussion directed to the attention of the relevant community. BD2412T 16:56, 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.
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)
Thanks. I've been around long enough to recognize the "on wheels" reference, which the blocked account used in his edit summary. As far as I'm concerned, invoking that is an automatic indef. BD2412T 23:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@OhKayeSierra: Checkusers and long time admins recognize and block the accounts on site. While I don't doubt your good faith in trying to link the accounts to an old LTA master, opening an SPI just gives them more attention and takes up valuable time we could be doing something else.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:03, 17 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)
The absence of consensus is no less clear despite that participation, although I have lingering concerns that we have no idea how many socks are participating in these conversations now. BD2412T 14:46, 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.
Thanks for the notice. Cheers! BD2412T 01:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar
Excellent work. Topics of this sort are neglected on Wikipedia and so filling this gaping hole is worth a barnstar too. Well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
Thanks, we'll see what comes of the current efforts. BD2412T 15:48, 21 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)
I was going to move it to draftspace myself; they just beat me to it by a hair. However, I did salt the mainspace title, so the draft will need to be approved by an administrator to be restored to mainspace. BD2412T 15:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
It's a beautiful thing, thanks. BD2412T 17:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes it's nice just to go hide in a wiki corner and do such things away from the stresses of life or the other parts of Wikipedia - it's been 4.5+ years since you started it so about due :) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:17, 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)
I don't think that I have anything to add there, particularly. It's a thorny issue. BD2412T 03:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I am about to take this to ANI, so the community will have a chance to chime in there. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This has been taken to ANI.[2] This feels uncalled for. I continued to ask for clarification and I felt like I was continuing to get new information and continuing to find new questions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
BD, I hope you didn't get a bad impression of me from our previous encounter.[3] That was really distressing. There were maybe four administrators all reinforcing that same narrative about me which I felt helpless to do anything about. I was saying that Muboshgu was only arguing in the direction that served his perspective without considering things from my point of view. I tried to say that my comment about him "only saying things that benefit him" was about conduct not content, but you didn't believe me, and once everyone else starting repeating the same narrative I couldn't do anything about it. What happened with everyone else there was literally the same thing that I was complaining about with Muboshgu's conduct, that you were arguing in the direction that served your arguments without giving me the benefit of the doubt. I can't take people to a noticeboard for not listening to me. I wish there was actual mediation that didn't result in sanctions for anyone. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, it is hard to get a good impression from that discussion. You're making pretty wild accusations, and it is not clear to me at all that you have a solid understanding of how the media work (with these generalizations about "mainstream media"), of what bias is, and of how reliable sources are deemed to be reliable. The article from the Guardian that you link to, for instance, is an opinion piece--a noteworthy opinion by an expert printed in a reliable (albeit left of center) newspaper, but still an opinion. That one opinion can hardly be used to condemn, in one fell swoop, the mainstream media as "not reliable". I think that you're backtracking about Muboshgu, whom I know as a fair admin who doesn't get involved in matters that he edits in, and who is not too quick on the draw with blocks and bans. And now it looks like you're arguing the same about BD2412? Drmies (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Drmies: Backtracking? I'm saying the exact same thing I was saying before. I guess I'm arguing the same thing about BD2412? If we're talking about the same thing...but now I feel the same thing about your comment, that you are not seeing thing from my perspective. That's all I've been saying. I'm disappointed with all of you for this reason. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I was using the Guardian piece to support my argument; I'm not saying that proved anything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I had actually forgotten the exchange on Muboshgu's talk page. That does make the pattern more concerning. BD2412T 01:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this. I just wish you would discuss my point of view. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You seem to think that everyone else but you is at fault for how your actions are taken. BD2412T 01:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That's getting more meta it's hard to go there. That makes it sound so accusatory. I'm frustrated and disappointed that no one believes me about what I said. I'm not at fault for no one believing me. I wouldn't use the term you're "at fault" either; you just dont' understand. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That I don't see things from your perspective is a given. Your perspective was incorrect. That things sound accusatory is because you, well, are being accused of a few things--like not seeing things in a very objective way. Drmies (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to respond one last time because unfortunately I still feel like no one is hearing me. My perspective is not wrong, that is not possible, because I am talking about the reality of my thoughts and feelings, not the arguments. It's so absurdly simple but we keep talking past each other. And I wasn't saying I feel accused, I was saying I feel like BD is saying I'm accusing them. Please let's just leave this as the misunderstanding that it is. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Your work as an admin is not being graded,
But it certainly is much appreciated,
To know that you see with vision that's clear,
A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear.
BD2412, thank you for all you do as an administrator
and as a collaborative editor. It has been a
pleasure to work with you. AtsmeTalk📧 04:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I am blown away! BD2412T 04:47, 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.
It appears that your additions have been identified as a copyright violation. You need to take that up with Diannaa, who removed them. BD2412T 17:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
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. SPECIFICOtalk 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I think that the enforcement mechanism would merely be that a case is brought to ANI of an editor engaging in the conduct specified, and the determination would be whether that conduct had indeed been displayed, with the T-ban automatically following from that determination. Frankly, I think any admin should be able to impose such a T-ban on sight, with the disruptive editor having the option to appeal it after the fact. I doubt that would fly, though. BD2412T 20:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but that could be happening already, except for the mandatory 6-month sanction, and yet it is not. Given how ANI functions, I would be concerned the decisiveness of the required sanction would make editors reluctant to make a finding of violation. JMHO. I think what MelanieN did is actually a good model. She is a seasoned and very knowledgeable contributor who was "on the scene" and therefore in a position to bring a credible case to ANI. We do not appear to have enough Admins following the AP articles closely enough to exercise that level of judgment. By the time cases are brought to ANI or AE by involved editors, there is already selection bias. SPECIFICOtalk 20:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Given our past history[4] I'm concerned about SPECIFICO essentially praising the case that has been brought against me. I do not believe that Melanie was in a good position to bring a credible case; she was extremely involved. I believe she has fought for years to get any mention of mental illness out of BLPs. She brought me to ANI when I was arguing for the inclusion of almost the exact same text which is in an article she nominated for a DYK. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not at all concerned about SPECIFICO's comment. I'm beginning to see, however, why people think you are bludgeoning the process. BD2412T 01:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll make one more comment, and that's that it concerns me that you say you are "beginning to see" that I am bludgeoning the process after you already !voted to have me TBANNED for six months. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
It's actually a bit late for that. I've finished forty of these, and I have three more to go, and then I'm done with this task! BD2412T 00:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject noticeedit
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!
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)
The issue that deletion hinged upon was the fact that there was not a single source on the page (at least for the one that I deleted). These pages were created 11 years ago; if photographers were "willing to pinch in" to improve them, they had plenty of time to do that. BD2412T 05:03, 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, petrarchan47คุก 20:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The behavior you described is enough to make an inquiry, although it is generally preferable to have identified a likely sockmaster. BD2412T 20:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
