Status: Active. bd2412 T

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

049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059-060-061

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landship may have a consensus, if you wish to close it out. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Cheers! BD2412 T 17:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Miraclepine has asked for a deletion review of Maito Santos. 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. —Cryptic 10:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And XNXX, on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 8. —Cryptic 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 in archosaur paleontology as Keep borderline WP:SNOW. I believe that the arguments advanced and the closing decision were flawed in their logic and in the application of WP policies and guidelines. Is there a formal process when decisions on AfDs can be re-examined by uninvolved participants to determine the correctness, or otherwise of the decision? Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• My understanding is the discussions closed as keep are discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review just like those closed as delete. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was just in the process of striking out my request having read the previous discussion but your quick response caused an edit conflict. The review of deletion process asks that I inform you, as the closing admin, of my decision to submit the AfD for review. Please take this thread as that notification, the formal link will come later. It may take me a few days to marshal the arguments before making the submission. I am several thousand miles from home and working on unfamiliar hardware and I realise that my arguments need to be policy based, succinct and logical and these requirements take some careful research. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am overcoming the flu, and have no great capacity to participate in such a discussion now anyway. Thanks. BD2412 T 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey,

I don't know if you have a way of looking into this or not, but I noticed an article for a district judge has been deleted for copyright issues, Adrian G. Duplantier. I don't know who the original editor/creator was but I was thinking about re-creating it, but didn't want to run into the same copyright issues, whatever those were. Any thoughts? Snickers2686 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the original creator was User:Billy Hathorn. I have restored the article with only non-copyvio material. BD2412 T 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Replied there, thanks. BD2412 T 02:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit here.[1] Since "child sex abuser" is a formal term used by governments on both sides of the Atlantic[2][3][4] and "convicted p..." is an utterly flawed tabloid phrase that sees multiple Wikipedia articles falsely report how innumerable people were jailed for having a psychiatric disorder, perhaps you would consider undoing the edits of User:Deacon Vorbis, who is now reverting all the corrections I've made over the last hour or so. Other users have explicitly supported my corrections.[5][6] Thanks. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• That seems like an issue to address through a community process. BD2412 T 04:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for closing and moving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of islands. There was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English exonyms for Italian toponyms and a couple other AFD that would have the same result if it's appropriate for all of these place translation pages to be on Wiktionary. I had just prodded List of English exonyms for Arabic-speaking places before I noticed the transwiki, though List of French exonyms for Italian toponyms and others have been tagged with Template:Copy to Wiktionary. However, it appears per Category:Copy to Wiktionary that this automatic process has ceased. What would be the appropriate process to have this carried out for these pages? wikt:Help:Transwiki is dead so I can't quite tell how to import (if I can). Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I can do these. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks – there's actually quite a few of these at Category:Lists of exonyms. Reywas92^Talk 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sounds like fun. BD2412 T 15:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412:

In the collapsed box on the main WP:MFD page, at the very bottom of the screen, the collapsed box is titled Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canada despite it being for the above userbox MfD, and I can't figure out where the page is that is referencing that collapsed box to fix it. It should be a link the MfD, not Portal:Canada. Any idea?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 03:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I did that once before. It should be fixed now. BD2412 T 03:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, Thank you, yep, all good. No worries. Doug Mehus T·C 03:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your comments on portals. it looks like for some reason, some of these old issues are re-appearing for no apparent reason. I appreciate your positive statements in support of applying some logic in favor of strengthening portals as a group. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. We'll get there. We're on the right track. BD2412 T 11:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You have correctly disambiguated Whimbrel in the western hemisphere bird lists. However, you also changed the specific epithet. Because the cited authorities for those lists' taxonomies (mostly American Ornithological Society, some Clements) have not split the species, the specific epithet should have been kept as phaeopus. Please restore. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how that can possibly be right. I'll change them back, but it seems damned odd. BD2412 T 02:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The several taxonomic authorities operate on different schedules and to a degree different philosophies. AOS is pretty conservative; they don't spit as much as Gill and Donsker (IOC). The AOS North American committee announces changes in July or early August and the South American one on an irregular basis. Clements is less conservative, but still not as split-happy as IOC; they also do an annual announcement, usually in July. Craigthebirder (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

United States v. Sisson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

• I accepted this as a stub, although it really needs expansion, both in terms of the rather complex situation in the case, the historical relevance , and whether further cases have referred to it.

DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @DGG:, I did not submit this, and would not have considered it ready for submission. BD2412 T 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The alternative would have been deletion as a G13, which I prevented. Even as is, it passes the criterion, which is that it would not be deleted at afd. I do not think we have ever deleted a modern US Supreme Court case. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a middle ground of making an edit to the draft to extend it for another six months, but this isn't terrible. BD2412 T 00:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate all your help at the page User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. I think that at this point, the last section "one closing thought," is simply detracting from the general readability of the page, since it is simply a discussion of my own recent edits, which have been reverted, as you know. So therefore, may I please suggest that we create an "archive" page for that page, and then move that section into there? I think that doing so would be appreciated by all the editors there. I would suggest to leave that section there for one day, a brief time period, just to allow greater transparency and to let others see it, if they wish, and then move it to an archive. I don't think it is helpful to the general readability of the page; I fully admit my own role in initiating that section, but at this point we can safely retire it. I have already added this suggestion, in that sub-section.

I hope that's okay? Please feel free to let me know your preference. I do appreciate your helpful feedback; your constructive criticisms are something I will note. Please ping me when you reply. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

that's terrific. thanks for your reply. Cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Now an editor there has left a personal comment there at the bottom of the talk page. It is their right to do so, but I'd prefer that it wasn't there. the answer to improper editing practices, is not further improper editing. is this supposed to open a new sub-topic? I had archived that section, precisely to allow discussion there to return to the page's core topics. it is preferable if we get back to the actual topics of that page. I am just letting you know. I am here if you need me, but otherwise, i will simply let the world to keep rolling along. I appreciate your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ok, I have condensed a past comment of mine there by a large amount, in order to meet them halfway, and avoid any possible pitfalls of one editor, even myself, appearing to add too much a specific discussion thread there. I appreciate your help, guidance, and input. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

just letting you know, I plan to step back from editing that page for some period of time, in order to watch the discussion as we receive input and insights from other editors, and hopefully get some cross-section of views of those who have been participating there. I'm assuming the discussion there will resume its focus on the core topics of that page. I really appreciate all your help there. it is good to have your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk)

The article Raymond Plouhar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BLP1E. Everyone dies....that certainly doesn't contribute to his notability. Being in the Marines is not notable. The ONLY thing about this guy is his appearance in the movie.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I have changed this to a merge proposal, as the subject is sufficiently noteworthy to merit some mention in Fahrenheit 9/11. BD2412 T 23:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I came within an nth of just boldly redirecting. And I'd certainly not object to you doing it yourself. John from Idegon (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer that the information, or at least a summary of it, actually be merged. There are aspects that are directly relevant to the film. BD2412 T 00:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I just took a look at your user page. wow! thanks so much for posting the informative links to let us know about your long-standing efforts here. I'm still reading through the data that you provided. but thanks so much for your efforts. I am starting with list of most active wikipedians, and then exploring other items after that. thanks for all the info. cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice of you to say, thanks. BD2412 T 23:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

no problem!!--Sm8900 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I need your help over at User_talk:Scottywong/Portal_guideline_workspace. if you see the last comment by SmokeyJoe there, they seem to keep bringing up my name there. I would like any discussion that refers to me personally to come to some conclusion, so that we can move on, and resume discussing the core topics at that page. it seems like anything that I do there to try to resume or return things to normal only gives them another reason to bring up my user name again. so I don't wish to comment there just to keep renewing this topic.

Just to clarify, I am not comfortable with any further discussion that mentions me by name. I'm not objecting to it as a general rule; rather I am simply saying I would like to see the discussions there simply move on and get back to the core topics.

Any comment that I make there to bring this topic to a close would apparently have the opposite effect. You, on the other hand, are highly credible and have lots of substance and expertise as an editor. So I'd like to ask that you please simply do whatever you wish there to bring this topic to a close.

by the way, please note, I am not asking for any rebuttal for any of the comments there. I am simply asking for this topic to ccome to a close, so that we can simply move on. any personal comments there are something that I am not comfortable with at this point. I'm perfectly willing to engage and reply constructively to any inquiry or any coomment that anyone wishes to make. I simply feel that in regards to this specific topic, we can simply conclude it and move on.

So if you could please make whatever brief comment you might wish to simply get the discussion there back on the core topics, I would greatly appreciate it. please note, you are welcome to ask me for any actions, approach, comment, or any other steps that you might wish me because you feel it is proper for me to do so. I am totally open to any such input. I am not trying to request any particular outcome there; I am simply asking for this subject to be closed, so that we can move on.

can you please assist? I would greatly appreciate it. again let me know any actions steps or comments that you need from me. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If you intend to withdraw from further activity on that page, I would suggest that you succinctly let that be known, and that will likely be the end of the conversation. BD2412 T 02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your reply!!! well, I can't say that there; because if I do say that, then if I make even a minor comment later, that will only raise a whole other issue. I am indeed planning to step back from editing that page for a while, but I wasn't planning to just stop commenting, or to never comment there ever again.

by the way I was planning to simply reply there simply by saying "point taken. good point." I don't mind saying whatever would be constructive. my only concern was that if every reply of mine simply raises up issues again, or stirs things up no matter how low-key then I might wish to request your input. however, I'm fine if you simply want to watch the discussion there, and see what happens. I will trust your ability and experience to take the right action, based on whatever will be most positive and beneficial for the discussions as a whole. I appreciate your reply. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be an industrious editor. I'm sure that with some reflection, you will figure out how extricate yourself from the situation appropriately. BD2412 T 02:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

true enough. well, that sounds fine. no problem, will get this resolved. it's good to be able to be in touch periodically. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. someone reverted my edit on a 'talk page.' are they allowed to do that? my comment was totally innocuous, as far as I can tell. if there's something that was wrong with my comment, then I am totally open to your feedback. could you please let me know? the change was at this diff: link to diff. I appreciate any input. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Their next edit was a self-revert, indicating that they reverted you by accident. BD2412 T 04:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

oh ok. lol I guess I missed that. sorry to have bothered you!! I'm very grateful though for how approachable you have been with ordinary inquiries and requests for assistance. I look forward to discussions with you about some other stuff that I have been considering. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It's all good. BD2412 T 04:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You are one of the most active editor/admins here, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel that the existing collaborative workspaces are sufficient. It would be better to put this energy into revitalizing existing WikiProjects. BD2412 T 05:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ok. which existing collaborative workspaces are you referring to? I am open to all opinions on this. however, I am simply just want to clarify, as I'm not sure if we have an existing workspace where coordinators of the most active WIkiProjects provide current updates on a regular periodic basis. could you please let me know which places you mean? I do highly appreciate your willingness to help and to reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

hi! by the way, we are discussing this now as a proposal, at the following location. your input would be welcome there. thanks. link: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Idea_for_new_community_workspace. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

By existing workspaces, I mean the various subpages of Wikipedia:Village pump. I tend to prefer improvements to the implementation of existing spaces over the creation of new ones, which can briefly be attractive as a shiny bauble, but then are just as quickly forgotten. BD2412 T 22:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you edited Sorshe Ilish, this jingoistic editor for Bangladesh again changed the place of origin to Bangladesh, instead of Bengal. This was even stated by User:Huon here in talk. It is clearly a Bengali dish, however, this user Za-ari-masen on multiple article is changing Bengali dishes to Bangladeshi dishes. Others are Chomchom, Bakarkhani, as well as articles such as Kazi Nazrul Islam and Gauḍa (city), which are not justified. These reversals are just Bangladeshi jingoism. All these are shares by both Bangladesh and India. As noted on the talk page, but the user Za-ari-masen comes back and changes it. (2600:1001:B003:5C82:61D3:209D:CA6E:5364 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

• I only fixed disambiguation links on the page. I have no knowledge of the area, and am unable to address it further. BD2412 T 12:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw your note re the drafts left by our fellow editor, colleague, and valued and cherished creative contributor to Wikipedia, user:Brianboulton. I admire your effort to put some value on the works of this individual who left such a rich legacy.

I would like you to please look at my contribs to his user space, and let me know if you are okay with my edits. I have created a page User:Brianboulton/drafts to list these drafts. then I would like to rename each numbered sandbox, using the title at the top of each one, and make them a subpage of the drafts page. there will be a list there, that anyone can easily read.

would you like to go there, and take a look at what I set up? I really appreciate your heartfelt efforts on this, on behalf of a cherished member of our community, who clearly had genuine erudition and intellectual creativity. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point I am going to ask that you cease leaving messages on my talk page—at least for a few days—as I am finding your communications to be excessive to the point of being uncomfortable, and a bit stalkerish. BD2412 T 04:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

no problem, will do so, and will respect your wishes to the fullest extent. I apologize if I over-stepped. no problem, will tone it down as you request, for a reasonable period of time. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you tag Mohamed Hassan as {{R from ambiguous term}}, please? You were the protecting admin. Narky Blert (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)