That I do not know. It's up to the (potential) nominee to choose to accept the nomination on their own preferred schedule. My position still stands, and I don't foresee anything changing that. BD2412T 17:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412. I have a question. Regarding RfCs... The debate may continue among certain editors even after consensus was reached. What should be done? If consensus was reached, the article should then be amended to reflect said consensus. If it is okay, I will make the edit ("songwriter" in the lead sentence) in question or you could make it if you prefer. Israell (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll get to it. BD2412T 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thx. Please take action when you determine the discussion has indeed come to a close. The fact is, certain editors who voted "No" will never change their mind on this topic no matter how valid the arguments of those who voted "Yes" (the majority so far) are, and it gives way to a one-sided argument. In my fair observation, those valid points are completely disregarded or rebutted with answers such as "Beyonce is not a songwriter," and we are to believe all those people at the Grammy Awards, ASCAP Awards, Billboard and some of Beyoncé's co-writers are completely clueless and misled. I will not respond to that discussion any longer because I have made all my points incl. some points that you've made, and it is not about the views of a few editors only or who has the very last word. 1. Only a handful of Beyoncé's songs were subject to such controversy. It is not possible to prove for certain that even 20 of those 346 songs were bought or stolen with no writing involvement from Beyoncé. 2. Many recording artists have been accused at some point of having stolen credits, plagiarized, etc. They are still defined as songwriters nonetheless. To conclude, I totally disagree that the purported addition would show WP:UNDUE. In favour of that addition, I have argued WP:V, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and other editors have argued one of these or other Wikipedia protocols. Israell (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I have now substantively participated in the discussion—which, I think, was a better application of my efforts—and therefore can't close it, but I'm sure it will garner an appropriate response at WP:AN/RFC. Cheers! BD2412T 06:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I see. WP:AN/RFC says: "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." I take it "any editor" does include admins, right? If so, you could close it. I will wait awhile and see. If the discussion stalls, I'll close it, then, but I would not want it to result in an edit war and flaming. I feel a lot of tension from a few editors, but as I've said, it's not about them only. Israell (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
One more thing... Regarding a footnote (discussed here [1]) explaining how does Beyoncé has never received a sole songwriting credit, I have repeatedly explained that it is *not* a criterion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's article on songwriting does not define a "real" songwriter as having had at least one sole songwriting credit. In a way, I'd have no objection, but in another way, to my knowledge, no Wikipedia article on any recording artist that has only co-written has such a footnote in the lead. Including it in would be a special measure for Beyoncé Knowles-Carter only, and that would be improper. Besides, the songwriting credits section of the article already does mention that. I have now updated that section [2] to specify Beyoncé does collaborate with numerous co-writers and co-producers (which was already implied) and how does she approach collaborative songwriting. One editor would want it all in the lead, but the songwriting credits section is made for that.
If it weren't for such accusations, I highly doubt this debate would still be taking place. IF Beyoncé is indeed an unscrupulous thief and none of her 346 credits can be trusted (which I don't believe and there is no proof of that), it is a problem for ASCAP, the actual writers and publishers, a problem that they need to solve in private with Beyoncé. It is none of our business here at Wikipedia, and we have no moral obligation in regards to that. WP:V was highly demonstrated in regards to her prolific songwriting and how notable it is. Israell (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: WP:AN/RFC, it would be a very bad idea for you to try to close an RfC in which you have been heavily involved. At the very least, the close would be reverted. BD2412T 15:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay. So far, there are nine "Yes" votes and three "No" votes, and arguments have been provided by both camps. Only two editors are right now showing strong objections, and the discussion is now going in circles. Israell (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm going through Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage (recently created tracking category). In the process, I've found quite a few pages already where archive subpages have not been moved when the main article and talk page were moved. Usually, I can just move the archive, but for Talk:2008 United States presidential election, I'm not able to. I think this is because the existing redirects ([3] until 14 and the index) have multiple move entries in their history, so I can't move the archives over the redirects. I'm asking you, because you were involved in the original moves in 2018. Could you move them? I just noticed there's also a /GA1 subpage, should that also be moved? Thanks! --rchard2scout (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well that's a fun little challenge. BD2412T 16:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. That was, in fact, not fun. BD2412T 17:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Rather than ask you to observe WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE based on issues of WP:DUE, I've decided to AfD the article since the coverage of her in RS is sparse or trivial enough that nothing is really WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It's already in much better shape than it was the last time it was deleted (which was before the subject received coverage for appearing in a well-publicized advertising campaign). BD2412T 03:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Morning BD2412. I notice that when you edited HMS Victory, and Temaraire articles you moved the "other uses" tag above the short description. I am not going to undo it, but WP:ORDER does say short description should be first item on the page, before any hatnotes. It seems silly, but sooner or later someone is going to change it back again, and I thought it best to mention it before you see people reverting your edits at some stage. Cheers. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@IdreamofJeanie:, this is one of the automated edits that AWB applies as a general fix. If it's incorrect, that needs to be kicked up to the AWB developers, because it's going to do that for every editor who uses that setting. BD2412T 16:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Please take a rest from changing Admiralty to British Admiralty for the time being as the move that necessitates this is being discussed and I seriously doubt that it will stand. - Nick Thornetalk 12:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, though there are not all that many left. It may ultimately be of benefit to the project to have all of these links piped anyway, as I have found a handful of errors that would probably have persisted otherwise. BD2412T 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Thorne: based on the trajectory of the discussion, I am resuming this task. BD2412T 01:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Etzedek24 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Citizen Queen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Citizen Queen, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, BD2412!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi BD. I was recently blocked and then unblocked by an admin who self-trouted for it. They struck the text of the block on my talk page. I think I remember being involved in a discussion with you in which you removed a block that you had made from a user's block log after a mea culpa. On my talk page, I asked the admin who blocked me if they could purge my block log, and they didn't know if that was possible. Do you know if this is something that can be done, or am I remembering wrong? This was my first block, and I value having a clean block log. Thanks. ― Tartan357Talk 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
So far as I know, it is not possible; the only thing that can be done is to leave an exculpatory comment in the unblock. BD2412T 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
BD2412, okay, thanks. That has already been done. ― Tartan357Talk 18:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Youth footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Dozens of articles appeared in the last 24hrs all can be summarized by a single phrase: Dennis Rodman's daughter was picked on a draft. Not notable
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.
Moved to draft for now. The subject has coverage from their youth career, but it's fine to wait until her pro debut. BD2412T 06:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Could I ask you to delete the "Attention Editors!" warning which appears on editing Aslan (disambiguation)? It is wrong per WP:DABMENTION. It was added when the page was created in 2005 (in a version which contained what are now MOS:DABBLUE, WP:DABPIPE and WP:INTDAB errors) by a now-retired editor. Narky Blert (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
That template was deleted. I've found another one: Template:Editnotices/Page/Grace. I'd have put it up for TFD myself, but it has an admin-only edit warning; could I ask you to do so? Narky Blert (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hog FarmTalk 12:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I have converted this into a proper disambiguation page. BD2412T 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged XNXX for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
about my userpage, someone had decided to add the word "bot" to my userpage, and I reverted it. Can I request the edits be deleted so that the most recent 2 edits are left in the trash? Starzoner (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Done - cheers! BD2412T 23:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Your move of High school (North America) to High school in the United States
I am surprised that the talk page was not moved automatically when the page was moved. BD2412T 02:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The talk page was moved, but since the pageswap script does a move without leaving a redirect, the old talk page becomes a redlink. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to know based on what sources, both in the article and not included, you elected to call the discussion a "keep" as the !votes were very undecided with the "delete" votes based on Wikipedia guideline and policy and the "keep" votes based on personal feelings about how the article was "written nicely", "probably needs additional sources", none of which can be found mind you, and "well, I don't care what the guideline says, it was kept before and should not be challenged again". Is that how we are going to decide notability? I genuinely would like to hear more of what you based your decision upon. I truly hope it wasn't only on what you provided in your conclusion. --ARoseWolf 16:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing prevents the article from being renominated for deletion in the future if proposed improvements are not carried out. BD2412T 16:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Granted you are correct, but your assertion in your conclusion states the exact opposite of what you are saying now. No "improvements" have been made on the article over two AfD nominations to and yet the conclusion is "There is no reason to expect that relisting would yield a different outcome"? I am not disputing the results of your decision at present. I am simply trying to get further understanding of your determining factors in your decision. --ARoseWolf 16:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I meant that there was no reason to expect that relisting that discussion for another week would yield a consensus to delete. Editors may in good faith disagree as to whether sources are sufficient to support an article, but a number of experienced editors have weighed in to say that the sources are sufficient for this article. Quite frankly, I have deleted articles with weaker sourcing than this one and seen that deletion overturned at WP:DRV, so perhaps the criteria for the project are not where you expect that they are. BD2412T 17:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
So, by your assessment, there were not a number of experienced editors who weighed in to say the sources were not sufficient? --ARoseWolf 18:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, the last statement may be true but we are explicitly instructed that AfD's are to be microcosms. We are not to use what happened with other articles, even similar articles, to determine notability. --ARoseWolf 18:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The criteria is there, it's just being circumnavigated in some cases and flat out ignored in others. What I expect from Wikipedia's guideline on notability is irrelevant to this conversation but since expectations was brought up, I asked for specific and direct sources you used yourself in determining the validity of what was being presented so I could understand your reasoning but I admit that I didn't expect you would provide that. --ARoseWolf 18:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Experienced editors in the discussion specifically evaluated sources in the article and made determinations about those sources. If you disagree, please feel free to take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review. BD2412T 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
regarding Draft:Untitled Harry Potter television series, not sure if it falls under a CSD criterion, but I had moved it away for another draft creation, as the content prior redirection (by me), was basically a hoax. HP is owned by Warner Bros, not Disney. so yeah, is it worth just simply deleting per G3? Starzoner (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no point in keeping draft history for a hoax. BD2412T 19:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
One more question. Regarding Specklinia corniculata, I see in my created article list that I created this. apparently its a redirect, yet the page history itself says I created it. Can the redirect be restored? Starzoner (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears to have been made into an article. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know whether a redirect would be better at that title. BD2412T 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I have asked for a deletion review of Chris Yonge. 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.
I am trying to follow the process of notification to you in good faith but the the tag it requests that I post here is so vague in what it requires and I see where the notification process is almost completely ignored which is bad for the integrity of the encyclopedia and for transparency of process. It appears to have worked based on the preview but apologize if it is not done correctly. I also wanted to note that I do not believe you acted in bad faith but I do disagree with the way it was handled and with the determination of the evidence provided. Thank you --ARoseWolf 21:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason you have decided to merge the contents of Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden without closing the AfD first. I find it highly inappropriate for an administrator that was involved in the AfD to then speedy merge the article as that was your exact !vote. Judging by the comments on the AfD I don't see how there is a overwhelmingly WP:SNOW consensus to merge either. The merge proposal on Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, which you were also part of, explicitly states The merge cannot take place until the Afd has completed.JayJayWhat did I do? 04:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The AfD was closed before I carried out the merge; the closer apparently reverted their own close twenty minutes later. I don't know why, but by then I had already done the merge. There is no reasonable possibility that the merge discussion was going to go any other way at that point, which is the time for a WP:SNOW close. The discussion need not be unanimous for that to happen. BD2412T 04:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The failure to realize Elijahandskip's NAC close was inappropriate as he had been heavily involved in the AfD and then using his NAC close to immediately close the merge proposal is shocking to me, especially someone who was also involved in both discussions. Doesn't that seem like a !supervote to you? JayJayWhat did I do? 04:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
There are over a thousand administrators on Wikipedia, with new ones being added occasionally. There are also numerous experienced XfD closers. I did not check the closer's credentials or look for their involvement in the discussion because that would be a highly unusual thing to happen. BD2412T 04:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It was all a massive confusion moment. IMO, no one should be called out other than the sock-puppet account that was doing massive vandalism and caused all the confusion in the first place. I joined in after a lot of the sock-puppet edits, so I was confused during the whole thing. When I did the NAC close, the article at that moment, did no exist. Either way, all is solved and lets move on. Agreed? Elijahandskip (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too critical last night as I did not realize the socks had been involved in trying to close the article multiple times. The AfD is reopened and everything is fixed so yes there is no need to continue this discussion. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
So I wasn't going to say anything because ultimately this AfD is no big deal. However, I keep thinking about it and so I'm going to ask: how did you decide that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYDIG's outcome was DRAFTIFY? Literally not one participant suggested it. There's one editor saying Keep but also that it might be TOOSOON. But the overall participation in that AfD is from pretty intelligent well respected editors on both sides of that discussion. If the answer is that there's no consensus, then there's no consensus despite a 5-2 headcount, but I just remain puzzled how draftify was the consensus outcome there. It seems, from the close, to be more of a compromise outcome which isn't the same thing in my opinion and isn't, as far as I know, backed by policy, guideline, or practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The nominator stated in the course of the discussion, "Personally, my preference would be to move this back to draft space for further improvement, rather than deleting it" (emphasis in the original). There is consensus that this should not exist in mainspace. BD2412T 01:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Your example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation was incorrectly fixed today - by a newish editor who may have just picked the closest Bartlett High School. I looked at their recent edits and others are suspect (like this one where they left a helper-comment in the code). Comments on their talk page indicate other cases of "sloppiness". I don't feel like going through them all (I am pretty sure at least one was correct). Maybe you can encourage them the slow down and be more careful. MB 00:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I have commented on their talk page. BD2412T 05:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Anti-nuclear protests in the United States
When it comes to informing the public, you know, the reason wikipedia exists, your edits on Anti-nuclear protests in the United States were completely inadequate. What you restored was copyvio free, content free, placeholder. You did good to keep wikipedia out of liability issues.
My goal is content restoration. I have a long history of defending content, though little involved copyvio issues. As an admin, you can see the history of the old version of the article. You can see where the copyvio was introduced. You can probably see whodunit. All I can see is a two month old version of the article that had no copyvio accusations against it. Why can't that be restored? Why couldn't you do it then? What I was probing was to see if a copyviobot can be run on the article (I was proposing the version in my sandbox so this is out of public view) to identify any copyvio issues in that version, so they can be cleaned or if none are found, so the article can be restored to that point.
This article has been around since 2007. It has something like a thousand edits in its history. Is all of it copyvio? If one malicious editor can wipe out 13 years of development with one introduction of copyvio, couldn't this become a tool to censor wikipedia; a technique to wipe out any content someone finds objectionable? Trackinfo (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Our practice is to revert to the last non-copyvio version and delete everything containing the copyvio, unless the copyvio was in the article from the very beginning, and there is no version that is copyvio-free. Presumably, since this article was deleted outright rather than reverted, that was the case. If you are looking for an exemplar of what the article looked like prior to deletion (or at least up until mid-2018) there a mirror of it at http://self[.]gutenberg.org/article/WHEBN0017784122/Anti-nuclear%20protests%20in%20the%20United%20States (unbracket the period to access the site and scroll down past the first picture). BD2412T 05:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Is that link a (dated) mirror? Or is it the source of the copyvio? Who copied who? Trackinfo (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It is my understanding based on the report preceding deletion of this article that there were numerous copyvios identified to numerous works. The link, therefore, would be a dated mirror (and is itself in violation of the same copyrights, but that's outside the scope of our concern). BD2412T 06:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It's been 3 years since the page was protected indefinitely for persistent IP vandalism. That threat appears to have passed. Could you please consider unprotecting the page? Best, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 18:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I have reduced the protection to pending changes. Cheers! BD2412T 18:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at this?. What should be my next step? Should I take the issues to Admin notice board or seek arbitration?. What is your opinion of the matter and can you outline the procedure?.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that your best step would be to gather and document the reliable sources reflecting the 400 million sales position. BD2412T 15:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I have already submitted a seven-year-old source to support the 400 million sales claims with this edit. However, Harout72, the editor who regularly updates the page with recent certifications wasn't interested in it. There are multiple sources like BBC, CNN, NYT, Time, Reuters, and RIAA to support the One Billion claims of MJ and the other artists like The Beatles And Elvis. Harout doesn't accept these sources, citing the available certification of all these three artists doesn't support these claims. But if you look at the available certifications of the Beatles it is 282.4 Million and his claimed sales are 600Million. The gap between their claimed sales is 317.6 Million (600-282.4). The gap between the available certification and sales claims of Elvis Presley is 372.7 M (600-227.3). The gap between the available certification and sales claims of MJ is 115 M (350-235). While pointing out these huge differences between the claimed sales and available certification of the Beatles and Elvis, the answer was if there was a certification system like today back in the '50s and 60's their certification would have three times more. While I agree they could have sold more I'm not convinced how he reached this unsourced opinion of selling three times more. Isn't that WP:OR? There is no source to support these claims. As you know RIAA is the biggest music market in the world and represents only 22% of overall global sales. It was established in 1958 just two years later of Elvis’ debut album. Before that, he only released four to five songs. Elvis has 199.150 million certified units from the RIAA, Which is almost 88% of his total available certifications. The Beatles have 217.250 million certified units from the RIAA, which is 76.8% of the total available certified sales. This clearly shows that RIAA with 22% of the overall global sale is the major market of these Elvis and the Beatles. Harout72 also said in one of his replies that all bands/artists from the US, UK, Australia, Canada sell much of their records in English-speaking countries than in other markets. This contradicts what he said earlier when he said if there was a certification system like today back in the '50s and 60's their certification would have three times more. Even if we consider his unsourced assumption of the Beatles and Elvis selling three times more in markets outside of the USA, the egregious gap between the Beatles claimed sales and available certification will be 186.7 Million and Elvis will be 316.4Million. So the difference of millions of these "missing" certifications is simply not making sense and nor is it neutral to me. There’s far too many contradictions, many of which is unsourced, most of which is from the perspective of one editor.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to ask you for some advice regarding your recent closure of a couple of the move discussions regarding article names for villages in Nagorno-Karabakh - what would you say would be the most constructive way to move forward?
I've tried to get some input previously from administrators as I first tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page of the Karakend article to move the articles for villages in Nagorno-Karabakh with historically Armenian-majority populations to their likely common names, as they are currently largely set to their de jure names decided by the Azerbaijani government, while some Azerbaijani-language names are more historic - which I also stated could be taken into account when the Azerbaijani-language names seem to be the common names.
However, that discussion was closed without result and so I initiated some individual move discussions as a way to move forward after asking for advice from an administrator. Some of the move requests (for example Haterk, Gishi, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ashan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Verin Horatagh, Nerkin Horatagh) have resulted in moves, while others have now been closed without result. You've stated that the move discussion closure rationale was that there is no consensus for the moves at this time - as I've understood the basic description of Wikipedia consensus, it involves "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines", not primarily being a vote count. For some of the aforementioned successful moves, the editor that have closed the discussions argued that opposing arguments that weren't policy-compliant could be discarded, and that common names are indeed preferable to official names on Wikipedia. This is particularly relevant when it comes to these discussions as many arguments have not been based on referring to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:AT/WP:COMMONNAME, but have been largely based on partisanship. I believe that the statistical figures with regard to the different names that have been presented are pretty clear with regard to what the likely common names of the localities are in the majority of the cases, even though additional sources could have been provided from the start to make it even clearer what the common names are.
What would you say would be the best way would be to achieve consensus and move forward regarding this issue? Unfortunately I've found that there is a lot of contention and disagreements about minute details with regard to anything that has to do with Nagorno-Karabakh when trying to discuss related matters on Wikipedia and conversations often turn into long back-and-forth conversations that are hard to make sense of in the end for both the participants and outsiders. Would you say that an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh would be the best option if one wishes to address the current state of the article titles? Got any pointers as to how the proposal could best be designed and presented in order to maximize useful discussion and participation?
If the arguments being made against these moves are premised on specific policies, it may be worthwhile to seek an amendment to the policy itself to specify the relationship between local populations and the common name of the place they inhabit. BD2412T 18:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
One the main issues in my view is that the opposing arguments are largely not premised on specific policies or guidelines, but partisan in nature and characterized by status quo stonewalling. Do you have further feedback regarding the advice I sought (regarding consensus, best way to move forward - format of a potential RfC for a naming convention) or would you prefer that I turn elsewhere? Just thought I'd ask in case you don't want to be involved further. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I would be interested in your opinion on my Sentinel-class cutter sandbox project about Sentinel-class cutters and their namesakes. This is just my idea on the look and scope of the list article List of Sentinel-class cutters and their namesakes. Is this appropriate? Is it complete enough as far as information? While this list is for specific Coast Guard class of cutters, could this be format be adapted for all U.S. military ships in a larger list article?
Your thoughts, please. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I assume the information can be sourced? Also, the first column is far too scrunched up. Otherwise it's an excellent start. BD2412T 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your "Thank you" that you left in my message box! That is encouraging. I did manage to figure out how to un"scrunch" the first column. This is the first major work I have done in about 5 years as most of what I have accomplished recently has been Wiki Gnome stuff. The editing markup skills are slowly coming back. The hard part is yet to come with my project; the research to write the narratives in the last column will take some time. I may move this to main space before finishing the last entries as the research on them will be hard to find without the CG Historian's Office and the CG Public Affairs Office to help. Some of the people honored with a cutter named after them are rather obscure as far as much information about them; others are relatively easy to find background. Your thoughts and advice? Is the title "List of Sentinel-class cutters and their namesakes" a correct and appropriate article title? Thank you for your encouragement and any guidance would be appreciated! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, this is what I will do when I pull the trigger on the main space list article. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I was about to create a new article for Lubbie Harper Jr. and found the draft you've been working on since 2015. I'm happy to expand it to start class and publish it, but I'm also happy to find a different African American figure to work on. Please let me know. Topshelver (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Topshelver: The drafts are there for anyone who can help to work on them - please do! BD2412T 01:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: Just wanted to let you know that I just expanded and published the article on Lubbie Harper Jr. - thanks again! Topshelver (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, very well done! BD2412T 02:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edit restoring the redirect Biological → Biology, but something weird is going on. The dab is not in the page history and the prev link on your edit suggest that you changed nothing (despite making the page 559 bytes smaller). Is the page broken in some way? Certes (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Certes: I moved the edit history for the edits creating the disambiguation page to Biological (disambiguation), lest the chain of authorship be broken. BD2412T 00:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks; that explains it. Certes (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. You recently reverted one of my edits [4] here, and while I know you left an edit description I thought I'd have a direct chat. The issue here is that on that if someone in most of the world lands on that page, they have no idea what country it's talking about. A lot of the world knows nothing about US states, so Iowa is meaningless to them for context. I suppose we should just add United States, to the end of the sentence to give the country context. Canterbury Tailtalk 18:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
We have thousands of articles on state supreme court justices, and have never done this for any of them. If you want to undertake this project, it should be done consistently across these articles, and should be done according to consensus. I would dispute that most of the world would not understand Iowa Supreme Court justices to be American, but either way the wording is terrible, as "an American justice" suggests that there is some mix of American and non-American justices of that court. BD2412T 19:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:Canterbury Tail. We should not presume familiarity by readers with American geography and geographic names. Hell, there are 20 cities in China that are bigger than New York City, and I've barely heard of them, if at all. And I have two degrees.
FWIW, we have a worldwide audience and distribution, and should write accordingly. The longest journey begins with a single step. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
We also have numerous small countries that may not be readily identifiable, but we don't qualify them. We don't say that Francesc Badia Batalla was a European Andorran public servant just because people may not know where the country of Andorra is, or that Nthomeng Majara is the African chief justice of Lesotho in case people don't know that Lesotho is an African country. I would suggest that common sense dictates that people who are looking up American state court judges, or arriving at articles about them, will already know that they are American to be looking them up in the first place, or through the path that leads to the article. BD2412T 19:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I will say I didn't. I arrived at it by the Random Article button. How I arrive at most articles I edit. I do agree with the initial clumsiness of the edit and that we don't need to state their nationality, but we should have some kind of country indicator somewhere. Those other articles you pointed out have the country indicator in there, just without the nationality. I shall edit the article to state that they were appointed from Polk County, Iowa, United States. We do not need to say they're American that I agree. Canterbury Tailtalk 20:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As a follow up, simpler way to say it, geographic locations should have a country indicator attached to them. I agree with not imposing a nationality on a person. Canterbury Tailtalk 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you going to make that change to all ~130 articles on Iowa Supreme Court justices? BD2412T 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably not, that's not really the important part of this conversation. I came across an article that contained a location without a country. We shouldn't assume people know the subdivisions of other countries well enough to know what country is being discussed in an article. Hey at least it's not as bad as the articles for places in the US state of Georgia that often read as if they're in the country of Georgia (or at least don't dissuade from that notion.) Canterbury Tailtalk 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Consistency of presentation across articles on similarly situated topics is very important. This should be done with all, or none. BD2412T 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually it should be done on all articles on Wikipedia. I do them every time I come across them but I am one person and there are millions of articles. Canterbury Tailtalk 21:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I was wanting to make edits on the page Persia. I did not want to disrupt it or ruin it or anything like that. I am not here for that. I consider myself a productive Persian. Should I create a separate page and then request the Persia article be redirected there? Or how about request for semi-protection on the administrators board? Perhaps a few hundred edits should clear a user to edit it.--Persian Lad (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
What edits do you want to make to that page? Anything that changes it from being a redirect to Iran would require a new consensus to overcome past consensus, which would need to be done through a WP:RFD discussion. BD2412T 20:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I want to add a list of things as to what Persia may refer to. And it's more than one thing. For example it may refer to Fars the historical homeland of the Persian people and it's even clearly stated on both those articles. It may refer Persis which that article also clearly states. It may refer to the Persian Empire. I want to list all these things and also add citations as well there, but the lock prevents me from doing so. Perhaps it would be more helpful if it was changed to semi-protection instead. Any objectionable changes made can be discussed. I read this thing called WP:BRD which is probably my best bet.--Persian Lad (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
That would require converting the title to a disambiguation page; Persia (disambiguation) already exists, and there is a note at the top of Iran pointing to it. There is a previous discussion-based consensus to have Persia redirect to Iran, which therefore can not be subject to a bold change. That is why the page is locked. It sounds like what you actually want to do is propose to move the existing disambiguation page, which is done through WP:RM. BD2412T 00:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay should I make a requested move on the appropriate page? Any necessary template should be in the instruction page you linked I presume--Persian Lad (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC),
Yes, the template is here, and you will want to put it on Talk:Persia (disambiguation), with your reasoning for the proposed move included. BD2412T 22:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Because both Biden and Trump has publicly expressed interested in running in 2024. The idea that they'll be the two nominees is speculation. If AOC gets the Democratic nomination, it'll be the greatest age disparity between candidates, but we have no idea who the nominees will be for nearly four years. However, I'm not married to this idea, so if you want to readd this, I won't fight you. Bkatcher (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Biden is the incumbent and Trump is (as of now) the the most prominent possible contender, as evidenced by the comparison to Grover Cleveland in the previous paragraph. Perhaps we can work on the wording. BD2412T 18:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I apologize for bumping into you – I was working on that section from the top and I think you were working on it from the bottom. It's all cleared now. Hope to "meet" you again there and thanks for your help on that project.
Hey BD2412, I see that after tirelessly fixing hundreds of links to Middelburg yesterday/earlier today, you've already started fixing the links to Middelburg, Netherlands, which are now broken again because of a second move. I've started this discussion however, proposing that Middelburg, Netherlands should redirect to Middelburg, Zeeland and not to the dab page, as it's a clear primary topic within the Netherlands. You might want to hold off fixing these links until there's an outcome of that proposal, just in case they won't have to be fixed after all. Lennart97 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I have actually already finished fixing all the Middelburg, Netherlands links. Even if this title redirects to Middelburg, Zeeland, the direct link will be more stable. BD2412T 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right about the stability part, of course. There are still a few hundred left, though, most of them not transcluded by templates but still in need of fixing. Lennart97 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that I re-fixed the ones I had previously fixed, which was a subset of the whole. That was the task I was working on. BD2412T 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense! Thanks. Lennart97 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! I’d like to request that the decision to delete the Lodro Rinzler entry be reconsidered and discussed further, ideally with additional input from users willing to evaluate the page’s history of content vandalism and conflicts of interest or who otherwise have experience with deletion requests from individuals accused of sexual misconduct. (My apologies in advance for any formatting or etiquette errors, as I'm extremely new to Wikipedia.) I've outlined some of the factors for consideration below:
Notability. This article was initially created by Mr. Rinzler’s assistant in 2015; in handling the request, user Finngallstated: “Based on a quick search for sources, Mr. Rinzler is probably notable enough to merit an article here. But it would be better if someone other than his own assistant wrote the article.” Mr. Rinzler received enough third-party coverage about him in real media to meet WP:GNG guidelines, and subsequent coverage of his allegations of sexual misconduct does not diminish (and perhaps increases) his notability, particularly among members of the public with an interest in Buddhism, Buddhist literature, Chögyam Trungpa, or the ongoing developments surrounding Sakyong Mipham and Shambhala Buddhism.
Vandalism and Conflicts of Interest. Although the talk page is currently inaccessible, the entry’s edit filter log shows repeated efforts to remove all information regarding the sourced allegations against Mr. Rinzler to the point where the page was protected for persistent disruptive editing. In December 2020, one such account that engaged in disruptive editing was flagged by multiple users for potentially failing to disclose a conflict of interest. On this point, it looks like wallyfromdilbert made several concerted attempts to resolve the issue and thus might be able to weigh in with additional clarity. Given the apparent continued general consensus among editors in support of preserving the sourced allegations, it seems that this broader context should have warranted deeper interrogation when assessing the merits of deleting or keeping the article, especially since the deletion was prompted at Mr. Rinzler’s request.
Right to Remember. As the Wikimedia Foundation states: “We believe in a Right to Remember. Everyone should have free access to relevant and neutral information of public concern; delisting and removing such content from the internet harms our collective ability to remember history and understand the world.” In this instance, deleting this page at the request of the subject is less an act of courtesy than of inadvertent complicity in suppressing information that could potentially be of value to individuals interested in purchasing Mr. Rinzler’s new book released this month, his first following the cancellation of his previous book contract in the wake of the allegations against him. These allegations are of ongoing importance within the Buddhist community, as evidenced by their reference in a February 23, 2021 article published in Tricycle, one of the most prominent Buddhist print/digital outlets. (By way of comparison, one of the other figures in the aforementioned piece is Noah Levine, whose social media footprint is similar to Mr. Rinzler’s and whose Wikipedia entry preserves information about allegations made against him.) Of course, no one should presume Mr. Rinzler’s guilt—and his entry certainly did not, citing his denial—but nor should the allegations be uncritically and entirely omitted at the request of the alleged perpetrator; instead, users should have access to all relevant information and make an informed decision accordingly.
Thanks very much in advance for your consideration. MettaAnalysis (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The "decision to delete the Lodro Rinzler entry" was made by the community. I merely carried out their consensus. Clearly, the subject did not inspire any support on the points mentioned above during the extended pendency of that discussion. You are, of course, free to start a new Draft:Lodro Rinzler based on new information and submit it for review. BD2412T 16:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@MettaAnalysis: Chiming in since I was pinged here--my cursory look-see from 5.5 years ago should not in any way be considered to supersede a more detailed and much more recent analysis by the community at large. I endorse BD2412's advice above. --Finngalltalk 16:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Some of the only sources about him discuss the sexual assault allegations and so it seems to make sense to include if there was an article since the subject appears to be a public figure and several editors felt they were appropriate accusations to include. However, notability is a higher standard than whether content is noteworthy enough to be included, and I tend to agree with the others who believe this article subject does not appear particularly notable. If MettaAnalysis can find sources and wants to create a draft, that would probably be the best way to go, although they should disclose if they have any conflict of interest with the article subject. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for responding so promptly and for providing helpful input. I have no COI and have never met or interacted with Mr. Rinzler, though I certainly understand why that would be worth scrutinizing given the issues raised in my earlier post (including past failures to disclose COIs on this entry). In this case, my viewpoint is informed by my long-time interest in contemporary issues within Western Buddhism as well as a desire to contribute to Wikipedia’s ongoing efforts to counter systemic bias. Removing information at the subject’s request is not a neutral act, and given the likelihood that Mr. Rinzler will continue to generate media coverage, I would greatly prefer that Wikipedia—one of my most valued resources—not come under fire for this decision.
So, since it seems like there is no avenue to reopen conversation and solicit broader input on the previous page, I will work to rewrite and improve upon the prior entry with additional information and sources throughout (there is certainly room for improvement, as there are several articles about the subject from the NYT, Forbes, TIME, etc. that were not cited previously). If the page is once again nominated for deletion, I will restate these issues for consideration at that time and let the consensus play out as it may. Thanks again for your guidance and bearing with me as I learn the ropes here! MettaAnalysis (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm dealing with another user, who in the past few days, constantly followed me, and "continued messages" and such in an antagonist manner. You've seen the conflict in the "sabotage strategies" thread on the admin's noticeboard. Just recent few edits reveal that he obsessively follows my contribution list and makes comments. The most recent 2 were here and on Liz's talk page, and he would not have noticed if he didn't explicitly notice my edits. There are a few more edits, even among the admin threads, show that there is extreme animosity mostly from. Just watch. He's gonna pop on this talk page and angrily respond that I'm the bad one. Please help.Starzoner (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I frankly feel like you should ignore them. Unless and until they actually seek some kind of penalty against you, don't let them bother you from going about your productive efforts. BD2412T 02:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
