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

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've got it. BD2412 T 02:19, 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. BD2412 T 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! BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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)

That would be the argument to take up in a request for undeletion of the article that was the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in film (2nd nomination), or in a request to move Draft:2022 in film back to mainspace. BD2412 T 19:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to exercise the refund option you mentioned in your deletion message so the page can be put into draftspace under Draft:List of American films of 2022. Rusted AutoParts 20:03, 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. BD2412 T 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)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fort Douglas (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Fort Douglas (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw you just created Willis J. Brogden. I'm finishing off Lycurgus R. Varser, so let's not overwrite each other :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: Are you working on the existing draft at Draft:Lycurgus R. Varser? All of these judges have draft pages. BD2412 T 18:18, 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! BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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)

Could I trouble you to tag Chuck Taylor, which you protected in 2009, as {{R from ambiguous term}}? Narky Blert (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:GallowsPole-Leadbelly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the main page is in draft, the talk page should be as well. Starzoner (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done, cheers! BD2412 T 19:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for moving the page to Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. However, I was wondering why Winners Take All (book) was redirected to the disambiguation page. There are no other books with the title Winners Take All. All the books are titled Winner Take(s) All. The only other works with the same title are a film, an album, and that album's title track. Shouldn't Winners Take All (book) be redirected to Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World? Thanks. I grieve in stereo (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. Dream Focus 04:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I consider the discussion of this matter here closed, given that it is now at WP:DRV. BD2412 T 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.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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? BD2412 T 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! BD2412 T 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! BD2412 T 04:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm looking for advice cause I'm a little confused by something. I know there is the article/list of Political appointments by Donald Trump. But now an editor has moved a majority of content from that page to separate pages they created,

1. Department of Agriculture appointments by Donald Trump
2. Department of Commerce appointments by Donald Trump
3. Department of Defense appointments by Donald Trump
4. Department of Education appointments by Donald Trump
5. Department of Energy appointments by Donald Trump
6. Department of Health and Human Services appointments by Donald Trump
7. Department of Homeland Security appointments by Donald Trump
8. Department of Housing and Urban Development appointments by Donald Trump
9. Department of Justice appointments by Donald Trump
10. Department of Labor appointments by Donald Trump
11. Department of State appointments by Donald Trump
12. Department of the Interior appointments by Donald Trump
13. Department of the Treasury appointments by Donald Trump
14. Department of Transportation appointments by Donald Trump

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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• As expected, this has been resolved in favor of my actions, which were proper. Cheers! BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 19:57, 22 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. BD2412 T 15:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit, of a 12 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. It tinkers others' watchlists. 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)