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)

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)

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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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. BD2412 T 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'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)