For your incredible work on helping create Supreme Court Justice articles. It is hard to find dedicated people on the missing article page. I am glad to have found your work. I will assist you as much as I can. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, AmericanAir88! The help will be most appreciated. bd2412T 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure. If you need any help, just ask. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
As we create various justice articles for the states, I realized that our contributions may contribute to the 50,000 challenge. Do you think they apply or not?
Yes, every single one of them. They are public figures in state government in the United States; many of them also turn out to have other importance to the country. bd2412T 14:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, you have created a ton so I guess this means we have to start adding the ones moved from draft. I added the one from yesterday. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@AmericanAir88: The Texas justices should be quick to work through, as the state has an informative database on them. I have added links to the drafts. bd2412T 20:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Will get right on it. Good work. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey there, regarding your close of the RM at Talk:Drum_stick#Requested_move_26_June_2019 I have the same question that I posed earlier about your close of the Garlic mustard RM: isn't this a case of "no consensus" rather than "consensus to not move"? A raw headcount gives 5 users supporting the move (including nominator), and 3 users opposing (1 of whom supported a move to a different name instead). Based on your closing comment ("There is a clear absence of consensus to move at this time."), it seems like we're actually on roughly the same page on this and writing Not moved rather than No consensus was just an oversight? (Though with 6 users supporting a move and 2 against, I think even "clear absence of consensus to move" is overstating the case a bit. I'd be inclined to read the situation as there being a rough consensus that the page should be moved, but lack of clear consensus around which title to move it to.) Colin M (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I probably should have mentioned in the close that I gave no weight to the !vote of User:John Alstyn, whose participation in this discussion is his only edit to Wikipedia. The nominator was also a relatively low-edit account. As for the other proposed move targets, I would prefer to see a separate process clearly proposing one of those. bd2412T 17:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but that would make 3 or 4 valid supports and 3 opposes. That still seems far from "Consensus to not move", no? Colin M (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say there was a "consensus to not move". I said there was an absence of consensus, which there is. Absent consensus, the status quo ante remains. Another discussion with a more widely agreeable title might have a different outcome. bd2412T 20:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
My issue was with the bolded part of your close: Not moved. My understanding per WP:THREEOUTCOMES is that this indicates consensus not to move, and that the absence of consensus would be indicated with a bold No consensus. Is that not right? Colin M (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
We have discussed this before. There is no practical difference between them; they do not create any kind of precedent or bind any future outcomes. My explanation of the close clearly states that there is an absence of consensus. bd2412T 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Then why isn't that guideline called WP:TWOOUTCOMES? It seems like there is a practical difference in that one of them creates prejudice against future RMs. "Not moved" notifies other editors that they should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change vs. it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus". Sure, readers might be able to read your close message and infer "He wrote not moved but he really meant no consensus", but why not edit the bolded part so there's no contradiction? Colin M (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry if it seems like I'm pettifogging. The main reason I asked about this is that I hope to start closing some RMs myself eventually, and so I'm interested in calibrating my understanding of the process, particularly how consensus is judged. Colin M (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I should appreciate you keeping me on my toes. Let me know if you need any assistance when you elevate your game to closing RMs. bd2412T 03:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I have reversed the close for further discussion; I see no reason to change the page back to an obviously incorrect redirect for the duration of it, however. Either it will remain as a disambiguation page, or will point to a specific target, but it will not go back to pointing to the surname page. bd2412T 23:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
BD, I closed as not moved at Talk:Que_Sera,_Sera_(Whatever_Will_Be,_Will_Be)#Requested_move_11_June_2019. Let me know if you object, in which case I will quickly revert myself. As a further point of info, sources that discuss this point usually use grave accent, not acute; even the page with the album cover you showed did that; see this discussion. I have no opinion on what the "truth" is here, but it's fascinating. Hope I've helped. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You closed it correctly based on the direction of the discussion. bd2412T 03:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can I ask why you did this? Other than EFM, those user groups are included in your admin status... Just wonder. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Basically, I was curious to see whether it would change anything in my interface. It didn't. bd2412T 03:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: okay, just wondering - thanks for explaining --DannyS712 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Nashville Brewing Company logo.pngedit
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Nashville Brewing Company logo.png. 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).
Please delete the entries listed on Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss/R and other similar pages as you do them, or as you complete sections on these pages. I'm finding many that you've done, but have not deleted from this page. It's a waste of time to be checking and going to pages that have already had their typos fixed. Thanks.
@Ira Leviton: Would it be possible to regenerate the list after I have run through the batch to make common fixes? It's a bigger waste of time to have to edit the project page after every fix, particularly if the primary goal is to fix the errors themselves. bd2412T 22:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. You can ask User:Beland, who created the page. But I suggest go through a random section, or two or three, depending how much time you have, and then deleting all the entries when you're done. That way, you eliminate 20 to 100 typos and there's only one edit to the project page to add. (I mark down any that I can't fix, or things that should be left alone like species names, and put explanations for those, or you can leave them on the page). But leaving everything on the page is frustrating to others who work on the project.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of countries by population (United Nations). 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. Cobblet (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I have a couple of points to raise regarding this article:
While one critic said that the song was a revamped version of "Eddie My Love" (see [1]), and I agree that the song seems to have taken inspiration from "Eddie My Love", I wouldn't want to characterize the song as derived from the earlier song; the songs don't resemble each other in lyrics or melody.
"Freddy, My Love" was not originally recorded by Cindy Bullens for the 1978 movie soundtrack; it appeared on the original Broadway cast album in 1972, so, presumably, Katie Hanley did the first recording, although I haven't been able to find that specifically stated. (Hanley played Marty in the original Broadway cast, and Marty sings the song, so that's a fairly safe bet but I can't guarantee it.) --Metropolitan90(talk) 04:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Est, Maria. Since you had some involvement with the Est, Maria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. —Ketil Trout (<><!) 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as an error on my part. Cheers! bd2412T 22:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
re: this fix - that (and similar cases) is a closed archive, and I wonder what the dab fixing helps, as it's of no consequence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not of no consequence. Disambiguation pages accumulate erroneous links in various namespaces, and these errors must be checked and fixed. Disambiguation links in template space are usually even more pernicious, because they can propagate to any space in which the template transcludes, and will show up as appearing on in articles containing templates without being fixable by editing the article. Therefore, these must be fixed to avoid the general problem of creating false positives for what is usually the worst namespace for disambiguation links. If I'm not the one fixing the link, someone else engaged in the same task will eventually come along and do it, because the indication of an error will persist until it is fixed. Obviously, there is no need to maintain these errors in template space (even in closed discussions that happen to be in a space not designed to usually be occupied by discussions). bd2412T 22:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
All fine, but the "templates" for DYK nominations are no true templates - and it has been discussed if they shouldn't be formatted differently. They will never be included in articles, - they only come and go on the page of nominations, approved nominations, and article talk pages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Whether they are true templates or not, they are in template space, and therefore will take up space on the "What links here" page when editors are trying to clear disambiguation pages of incoming links. The nuisance this represents can be abated either by conforming the links to WP:INTDABLINK (presuming you actually intend to link to the disambiguation page, which would usually be the wrong link), or to actually point the link to the page intended. bd2412T 00:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Greetings BD2412! I mentioned you on User talk: Paine Ellsworth#Viacom but the ping failed because I spelled your name "bd2412", so here's a more personal notification. Enjoy! — JFGtalk 00:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malik, Abdul. Since you had some involvement with the Malik, Abdul redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Nicholas Emery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
BD2412, I wasn't sure whether you'd be interesting in addressing the issues that came up during this DYK review, since you weren't the nominator. I have added a DYKmake credit for you, since your contributions are included in the article combining your draft and Alphalfalfa's, and since the latter hasn't been on Wikipedia for a while and hasn't responded to the review of two weeks ago, you may be the only person who could get the nomination through. Thanks for considering it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's going fine as it is now. bd2412T 23:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Since I forgot to ping you, I might as well mention this here, though I imagine you've watch-listed the page. Understandably, you may think that I am looking for drama. I am not. I waited until after the page had dropped from its main-page promotion a few days ago to make my one sentence addition, as I suspected it would be fought tooth and nail. More than one editor argued to keep this information out of en.wp entirely back in 2016. As such, I am aware that the treatment of this issue is a long-standing problem. I had never edited the biography page (proof) for precisely this reason: I did not want to politicize the question. However, we are well past political time and into encyclopedic time now... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be resolved for the time being. bd2412T 23:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Residences. Since you had some involvement with the Residences redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I have responded in the discussion. bd2412T 23:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mental health of Donald Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Mental health of Donald Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ―Mandruss☎ 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers! bd2412T 02:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
On 30 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas Emery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nicholas Emery tried to negotiate the sale of Maine's northern territory to the American government for one million acres (4,000 km2) of the Michigan Territory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Emery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nicholas Emery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. bd2412T 22:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019edit
Hello BD2412,
Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
I have no particular insight into this issue. bd2412T 03:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for assembling the "nuts and bolts" on Climate change DC article!edit
Oliveleaf4 has given you nuts and bolts! Nuts and bolts promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more efficient. It is the nourishment best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else nuts and bolts, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of nuts and bolts by adding {{subst:Nuts and bolts for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
~~
Many thanks. This is certainly one of the most unusual barnstars I have received! bd2412T 00:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind reviewing your close for Franco Fiorito and relist it? I made the last post to the thread noting I had cleaned up the article on WP:HEY grounds, which I believe satisfied the concerns of the users who wanted to move it to draft space. Fiorito clearly passes WP:GNG and a SNG as well, and I fixed the article to remove the potential WP:BLP issue (the article which was discussed referenced allegations, but he has been sentenced for his crimes for a couple years now.) I'd just move it back to mainspace since I think it's ready, but I don't want to look like I'm causing a fuss. I'm asking for a relist for more discussion to take place now I've cleaned up the issues. SportingFlyerT·C 06:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I suppose their is no harm in relisting. bd2412T 12:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You might like to G6 the old empty sub-categories for tidiness' sake. I managed finally to clear another one yesterday, and a couple of them have been hanging around for two months. Narky Blert (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I will have a look, thanks. bd2412T 10:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Need help with another admin's reversion of move following Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019edit
The original Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019 was closed on 8 August 2019 with the article moved to 'River Dyfi' by User:DrKay. However, DrKay has since moved the article back to River Dovey and reopened the discussion interpreting my messages to them as opposing the move, which I was actually satisfied with as 'River Dyfi' appears to be the most common name in reliable modern-day English-language sources, when I was merely asking them to provide a reason for the use of 'River' over 'Afon', in the chose title, used in some English-language Wikipedia articles about rivers in Wales. I tried to ask DrKay in case their reason is helpful in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers#RfC about the examples of local names discussion I started about the wider dispute on whether to use 'River' or 'Afon' in the title of an article about a river in Wales. To re-open the discussion on account of just one user who did not go through Wikipedia:Move review seems rather rash. This contrasts with my request to User:Cuchullain, who closed the Talk:Aberdyfi#Requested move 17 June 2019 discussion, to provide their reason to not move Aberdyfi to 'Aberdovey' ('Both names appear to be in use, but the consensus here is that the sources suggest "Aberdyfi" is the common name in English-language sources') which they provided in at the top of the relevant section and I publicly thanked them for it. Tk420 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Please stop hopping around from admin to admin making the same point. The re-opened request will close in the usual way. DrKay (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I will assume that this situation has been resolved by now. Cheers! bd2412T 10:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It has indeed been resolved by User:Cuchullain who moved the article back to River Dyfi stating their reason as 'There is clear consensus that this is the most common form' and I publicly thanked them for it. Tk420 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I am satisfied with that, thanks. bd2412T 20:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU 10:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finishing off editing the rogue links to Vox that were created after I retargeted a couple of ambiguous links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Well done, cheers! bd2412T 10:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason that you chose to delete this instead of re-listing it? I was late to the conversation and the sources I brought to the conversation directly addressed concerns by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The other participants in the discussion had time to respond to your request for a second look, and did not. The fact that sources are presented which might scratch the bottom of the barrel for notability does not present a resounding case for overriding the votes to delete. If you would like, I will refund the article to draft for further work, but that is no guarantee that it will be reviewed there as meriting restoration to mainspace. bd2412T 18:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume Chubbles talked to you. He has a habit of running to the teacher. He and I have been debating (if you could call it that) the very subject you commented on. So we are in the middle of it with nothing resolved yet. You can find the discussion on his Talk page under "Names without Articles". –Vmavanti (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware of the discussion. No one needed to talk to me to see that the removal of information from the page is problematic, and your approach to it is overly combative. bd2412T 21:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
You didn't address any of the points I made.Vmavanti (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Some of the lines you removed were for artists who have articles linked elsewhere in the same list. A cursory search of some of the artists with no article indicates that they are likely notable and should have articles. I see no indication of any care taken in pruning content. bd2412T 04:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you give examples? I added a new sideman discog in which there more albums than before, with accurate labels and dates. I made it better. Or do you disagree?Vmavanti (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
You never met me and you never will, yet you call me combative. You have never communicated with me on Wikipedia, yet you call me combative. That's a figurative term, something we should usually avoid. No one here is involved in literal combat, though it may feel that way to some. Wikipedia has been set up for conflict. The design is pure demolition derby, straight out of J.S Mill: throw together differing opinions, and whatever emerges must be the truth. Give the public nearly absolute freedom to contribute without held being accountable. That's the situation we're in, and that's why policing speech and expecting much civility is absurd. They should at least not be our first concern. You don't organize a demolition derby, then expect the drivers simultaneously to drink tea with their pinkies sticking out. Now there's figurative language used appropriately. You call me combative, but you don't know what I have had to go through to achieve progress, esp. with particular users who display something like oppositional personality disorder and have a religious devotion to avoiding the delete key, something editors in the real world (which I have been) would find astonishing and ridiculous.
This is not to say my approach, which you call combat, has been "do whatever works" or "the end justifies the means". Far from it. Unlike others, I have never taken the "ignore all rules" approach. On the contrary, I remind others of the rules often, much to their annoyance, though I do so judiciously. For example, I learned about citations and documenting sources at the age of thirteen in a very bad American school. I expect anyone over the age of thirteen to cite material properly, particularly the material they have entered in an article. There's no excuse for failing to do it.
Wikiproject Jazz has a ten year backlog. I imagine other projects are similar. I have been trying to four years, almost single-handedly, to put a dent it. To make progress. As far as I know, I do more work on jazz articles than anyone else. There are only a few other regulars, and they spend nearly all their time on discographies because they are record collectors with a special interest. They want the Wikipedia discography to to look exactly like the discographies they read about in books. They want me to copy paste everything from Discogs.com. This approach neglects the public interest, the general interest of the general Wikipedia reader, for whom we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia. I don't do that. I write for everyone. Now who's the one being combative?
You call my approach combative. Have you considered the points I was trying to make in that long, typical, unproductive "debate"? If I removed names that had articles, that was a mistake. I make them. I wish I didn't. But everything I have done, over 70,000 edits, is in the good faith attempt to make Wikipedia better. That means not just correcting mistakes. It also means trying to prevent them from being happening again. Otherwise, working for Wikipedia becomes simply whack-a-mole. We go in circles, and nothing gets done, and no learning takes place. One person, once, admitted to me he made a lot of mistakes. I told him that was OK. In science, for example, mistakes are part of the process of experiment. There's nothing wrong with mistakes. It's learning from them that separates the men from the boys. I am trying to avoid these articles from remaining open-ended, infinitely expansive, permanently unfinished, permanently crappy. But I am dealing with people who hate limits. People who think one tiny divergence from Discogs.com ought to lead to a duel. Fortunately, we are not dueling. We are talking, though sometimes in harsh tones. So what?
I'll talk to you about what I'm trying to accomplish and why I made specific edits. But I won't sit by while strangers on the internet insult me and falsely accuse me. I'm not a doormat. You need to ask: Whose edits are making Wikipedia better, shrinking the backlog, and whose are making it worse in the long run? I would name names, but that would probably get me thrown off Wikipedia. –Vmavanti (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
My observation, as a fourteen-year administrator of this site, is that your interactions with Chubbles were combative. It is also not clear how the removal of correct information from an article is reducing any backlog. Note that I pointed out one notable red-linked figure whose name had been removed in my edit summary reverting you, and redlinked their name in the article. bd2412T 14:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Please re-read what I have written when you have time. That includes the points I made on the Talk page re:the so called debate. I'm guilty of not being Mary Poppins. I'm certainly not guilty of breaking the rules, acting on bad faith, or harming Wikipedia. Unlike many, many people who "contribute" to Wikipedia. –Vmavanti (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to come down to your willingness to use "harsh tones" to defend mistakes. It is not a question of if you removed names that had articles. I pointed those out in the edit summary, as well as at least one deleted name which clearly merits an article. bd2412T 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In your mind it seems to come down to "harsh tones". It's not important to me that people act like Mary Poppins, which is good because no one here ever does. It is important that they follow the rules. To me, actions matter more than words. Wikipedia is designed for conflict and tension and debate. Who knows? If you were in my shoes, you might be using "harsher tones". Or worse. –Vmavanti (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The article has effectively been deleted - there is consensus in AfD to delete, but I made it into a redirect so that content in the article can be accessed through the edit history and used to improve the redirect target, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. G8 applies; there is no longer an article at this title. Cheers! bd2412T 02:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Although I am not happy with the direction that discussion (and a lot of other recent ones) went, I think they way you closed it was perfect. I was going to merge the sourced bits somewhere, and now that I look at the article you redirected it to, that would be an excellent place to start. Probably not soon, but possibly later this month or next month. So, thank you for that well-thought out close. BOZ (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I think User:BD2412 misreads WP:CSD#G8, it does not authorize deletion of redirect talk pages, and I also think the AfD close statement "The result was technical deletion" is unhelpfully incorrect. The page is NOT technically deleted. It is not even pseudo deleted. I think the talk page should be undeleted. I think the closing statement should state: "The result was redirect ...". Closing statements on the result should match the result. For what it's worth, I think that the redirected article could be reworked into a navigation template to be shown at the target article. Before going further, I would definitely want to see (not edit) the talk page. I think the talk page should have been redirected (history intact) to the target talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I consider the redirect of the article to be a temporary measure, to give editors the time to review the content of the previous article and see what content can appropriately be merged into the target. I do not think anyone intends for a substantial portion of the content of the redirected title to be preserved. However, as there is no harm to restoring the talk page as a redirect, I will go ahead and do this for the time being. bd2412T 01:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for humoring me here. The talk page is at least interesting to read, particularly to read BOZ's comments there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
LOL, thanks. I'm sure I have all sorts of old stuff floating around Wikipedia after all these years. :) BOZ (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I have a couple of the pages you recently edited on my watchlist, and I noticed you left an edit summary that it was to fix links to disambiguation pages. However, I also noticed that Princeton isn't a DAB; it's a redirect to Princeton University already. Is there a discussion to create a DAB, or change the target of the redirect? Was curious what was going on there. CThomas3 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't a dab, but it is ambiguous in the sense that there are (or were) a substantial number of links intending Princeton, New Jersey. I would estimate about 1/3 were incorrect. In order to clearly see that there are no incorrect links, I fixed them all. The edit summary indicates disambiguation, but also "improving links, other minor cleanup tasks"; this was one of those tasks. Perhaps I can make the summary clearer for future tasks. bd2412T 01:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I didn't realize there were quite a few that were incorrect. But I guess I'm confused as to why the 2/3 or so that were pointing to the proper place needed to change as well? I assume you had to go through on a case-by-base basis to determine which meant the university and which meant the city, correct? Wouldn't NOTBROKEN apply to the others? Especially those where the context is absolutely clear? CThomas3 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Since the context is not clear from the appearance of a link on the "What links here" page, this is unfortunately the only way to easily avoid the accretion of incorrect links. bd2412T 02:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I see. Thank you for the explanation, it is much appreciated. CThomas3 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
List of Hague Academy of International Law People Articleedit
As a fellow administrator who has previously contributed to the List of Hague Academy of International Law people, I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a second opinion with regard to a discussion I am having with User:Hansmuller on the article Talk page regarding the possible renaming of the article because I am not sure if his response to my proposal is consistent with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any assistance you can provide would be most appreciated.--TommyBoy (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I have replied there. bd2412T 03:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
hi. I may wrong but as far as I remember you were the administrator of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizaveta Shanaeva. Not sure you recall this but after closing the article you have requested further investigate on elizaveta shanaeva’s sports partner devid naryzhnyy. Article was closed on the reason of all keep! votes were from inexperieded wiki editors and they may be a sockpuppets. But after reopened nominations of devid naryzhnyy, experienced editors voted keep on Articles for deletion/devid naryzhnyy, so it was decided to keep again.
Not sure you know about figureskating(ice dance), 2 skaters are one team as an russia ice dancer, so they have the same ground. So considering standar of the nomination is acually same. As you already know Im not experienced editor so I just want to ask you to what about reconsidering about closing the article of elizaveta shanaeva. Here i will put the link of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devid Naryzhnyy. thanks and have a good day Yoniiieei (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Restored to mainspace accordingly. Cheers! bd2412T 11:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Almeida until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 00:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No interest, thanks. bd2412T 01:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if a broad concept article could be written at Clipper (tool)? There was an RM at Talk:Clipper (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 June 2019 where although I agreed specific types of clippers are PTMs (such as nail clippers and hair clippers) I thought that it might be possible to have an article on the tools in general (providing it doesn't violate WP:NOTDIC). If this is done then we could reconsider the RM and I actually would support moving the ship to "Clipper ship" since that's what Encyclopædia Britannica calls it even though they can have more than 1 article with the same title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that a hair clipper is now generally understood to be an electronic device rather than the simple cutting tool described by a nail clipper or a hedge clipper, so I don't know that it would be worth the effort to try and put together a broad concept page for these. bd2412T 17:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree a hair clipper is today usually electrical and hedge clippers are also quite different. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Leaving aside the broad concept article issue, would you have supported the move? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think there is a primary topic here. bd2412T 17:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you closed that discussion as "keep"; given the nature of the arguments and the statistics brought forward, I think it would be better if the discussion was closed as "no consensus". ToThAc (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ToThAc: Can you specify which arguments and statistics you refer to, and which consensus-based policy in Wikipedia gives them weight in such a discussion? bd2412T 18:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In progress... ToThAc (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, allow me to explain:
Okay, first of all, what policy-based reason compels you to believe that the keep !votes were based on strong merits? They weren't. The merits were actually pretty weak to begin with. Sure the basis for deletion was practically nonexistent at first, but it slowly gained more ground as the discussion continued, so saying there was a "clear" consensus to keep the portal at the time was invalid.
Statistical evidence presented by Robert McClenon indicated that while the portal had greater-than-average pageviews, the ratio with the parent article was still just as low. Apparently portal advocates are still failing to get the message that portals aren't at all equal to content articles, and deleting them would not result in any loss of information.
BrownHairedGirl has repeatedly stated that, while portals do not always constantly need maintenance (as per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY), that users (such as myself) have used common sense to come to the conclusion that portals that have never shown any signs of routine maintenance whatsoever have outgrown their usefulness and therefore should be deleted.
Not 100% confident that this accusation has solid ground, but to put this with as much civility as possible, I nonetheless have reason to suspect that prolific "keep" !voter Moxy has engaged in uncivil behavior; they have repeatedly made comments such as "Again and again and again and again.....just pointless unhelpful crap talk." or "Yup walls of text that do zero to help." while both times seemingly failing to address the overall substance of prior arguments. At one point they even accused BHG of casting aspersions with next to no evidence or convincing arguments.
Not a single "keep" !voter ever laid out a maintenance plan for the portal, failing to address a key argument on the deletion side.
All in all, these are issues that I believe need to be further scrutinized before the discussion is closed at all. ToThAc (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) looks like a consensus to keep to me. There were more keep !votes than delete, and they noted that the portal had been rescued and continued to serve a useful purpose. Also, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes whether it's "consensus to keep" or "no consensus". Either way the portal is kept, and if it seems to be abandoned again down the line then anyone is free to renominate it citing the new circumstances. — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there any problems with the current portal that can be fixed? --Moxy🍁 22:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
BD2412, I came here since I was pinged. I don't have the energy to get into the details above, but I was surprised to see you close a portal MFD, since you have been involved as participant in many recent and current portal MFDs. Despite your undoubted good intentions, I think it's generally unwise to blur those lines, and to assume that one can be wholly impartial while taking a stand elsewhere on closely related issues.
I have sometimes entered that grey zone myself in closing CFDs to help clear a big backlog, when there has been a big backlog (sometime sup to 6 months!), and me answering requests to do some closes seems to be the least worst option. In such cases, I do my best to weigh arguments against policy, but it's not a good situation to be in.
In this case, there has been no significant backlog at MFD, and there several experienced closer whose lack of involvement is beyond doubt. Given all the controversies around portals, wouldn't it better to leave this one to a clearly uninvolved closer? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@BrownHairedGirl: again, as I told ToThAc above, I don't think this is a particularly controversial closure given the way the debate unfolded. I also don't see how BD2412 is involved in the portal debate, other than that they have made some comments in the WP:AN/I thread. But the comments there look to be aimed at resolving the dispute, not taking any particular view on the matter. So all-in-all I don't see much reason or benefit for further discussion on the subject of this close. — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: As I wrote above. BD2412 has been involved as participant in many recent and current portal MFDs. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ToThAc: I find no consensus-based policy within Wikipedia giving weight to a ratio of pageviews between types of content. It is perhaps an interesting item of trivia, but in the literally thousands of XfD closures that I have made, it is not one that has ever been supported by any specified policy. It would, in many instances, be comparing apples to oranges. With respect to the need for routine maintenance or the laying out of a maintenance plan, these would need to be properly adopted into policy to be considerations for a closing administrator. As to civility issues, such issues in these discussions are tame compared to some of the more complex closures that I have made in other namespaces, occasionally with dozens of participants shouting bloody murder at each other. I would remind you that no XfD close is of precedential value. Irrespective of whether a discussion is closed as "kept" or "no consensus", any editor is free to re-nominate it for deletion after a reasonable period of time, if policy-based concerns can be articulated.
@BrownHairedGirl: I have had no involvement in any MfD that I have closed. With respect to involvement in other discussions, I do not consider this to be an issue. Many, perhaps most active administrators routinely participate in some AfD discussions and close others. On Wiktionary, where there are fewer admins, I have often closed discussion in which I was a direct participant, without issue. bd2412T 22:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I will offer a few comments. The first has to do with involvement and the appearance of involvement. Portals are a subject on which most of the editors who take part in an MFD are not neutral, including administrators. I would object to a closure of a portal MFD by User:Northamerica1000 or by User:BrownHairedGirl. Those are hypothetical closures, and I think that both admins have the common sense not to close a portal MFD, even if they didn't !vote in it. I would like to thank User:Scottywong and User:JoJo Eumerus for being available as uninvolved closers for portal MFDs. User:bd2412 is not nearly as much of an advocate of portals as NA1k, but I agree with BHG that they have a degree of appearance of involvement. Second, this MFD was a difficult one to close, because there was a strong majority of Keep !votes over Delete !votes, but the Keep !votes were, in my opinion, very poorly reasoned. (I was !voting Keep until I saw how bad the Keep reasoning was.) However, it should almost always be within the judgment of a closer to go with the solid majority rather than closing with a supervote. I count 9 Keep votes and 5 Delete votes if we count the nominator as a Delete and we discount the IP. I didn't see a good case either way. I wouldn't have closed this discussion. I am not neutral on portals, although I am on this one. However, I think that either a Keep or a No Consensus would have been valid judgments by the closer. If this goes to DRV, I will Endorse the Keep as a valid judgment by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts:
This MfD was never going to result in the deletion of the portal. Whether it's closed as Keep or No Consensus, the end result is the same for the portal, and as BD2412 points out, closures of deletion discussions don't create any kind of formal precedent (although I'd argue there is a small de facto precedent set by closures). Therefore, whether it's Keep or No Consensus is almost entirely inconsequential, and not worth wasting too much time on.
It's true that there is no policy that gives weight to a ratio of pageviews between types of content, nor is there a specific policy that mandates that portals must be adequately maintained. This is because there are a grand total of zero policies or guidelines that apply specifically to portals, now that WP:POG has been demoted. But, just because there are no portal-specific policies or guidelines doesn't mean that editors can do whatever they want with portals without risk of deletion. There is no specific policy that says you can't create a portal where all the text is upside-down, but we'd certainly delete it quickly if someone did. If we see a portal that hasn't been maintained in 10 years and is serving outdated information to our readers, it is very likely to be deleted at MfD even though there is no specific policy that supports this position. I guess what I'm trying to say is that portal MfDs can't always be handled like AfDs, where we rigidly adhere to very specific policies, because there are no specific policies. We can only rely on WP:COMMONSENSE (WP:IAR) and other very broad WP policies.
I haven't closely followed your involvement at other portal MfDs, but it seems that others here believe that your past participation in portal MfDs implies that you have a strong opinion about the fate of these portals. And if you have a strong opinion about it, you might be more likely to develop a bias that affects the way you interpret and close portal MfDs. In other words, if you strongly want to see portals kept instead of deleted, you have a conflict of interest when closing portal MfDs. I don't know if you have a strong opinion, or a bias, or a conflict of interest; and I don't really care enough to find out. However, I would say that it is definitely possible for any administrator to be considered WP:INVOLVED in a deletion discussion that they haven't participated in, if it can be shown that the deletion discussion is part of a much larger series of related discussions in which that admin has participated significantly and/or expressed strong opinions. If you honestly think that there's a chance that this is the case here, I'd encourage you to at least avoid closing contentious portal MfDs. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 03:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Scottywong: Your comments are well taken. To reply briefly, there was substantial argument by those advocating to keep this portal that they had repaired its faults, and a substantial amount of work is reflected in the edit history of the page (as is, for that matter, a substantially higher-than-typical amount of maintenance occurring in the months before the MfD nomination). I would venture that a portal that was both poorly maintained and had no editors interested in maintaining would have drawn much less support. As to my own participation in MfDs, I have opined in a handful of these discussions. I have voted to delete portals far more than I have voted to keep them. I have proposed for a fair number of portals nominated for deletion that they should either be merged and redirected into supertopics, or moved to project space and archived for historical purposes, both of which I consider to be softer forms of deletion, as the end result is that the nominated portal is gone. I have not closed any MfDs for a portal for which I have had any involvement in either the deletion discussion or the editing of the portal. I note that I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dorset as delete, without issue or objection. The ration of "keep" to "delete" votes for that discussion was roughly flipped from the ratio for the Canada discussion. bd2412T 04:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: as I noted above, I think that it's best to take a very broad view of WP:INVOLVED, and to start to narrow it only if there is a problem with backlogs and loosely-involved close is better than leaving a discussion open for a few months. I just don't see any pressing need to take a narrow view of INVOLVED at MFD, where there isn't a backlog problem. As you know, portals have been a heated topic this year, and it's nobody interest for any whiff of inappropriate-closer to be added to the vast array of portal disagreements. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't indulge that broad a view, as there is always the next closest matter that could get caught in an ever-expanding net - ultimately, one could say that an admin who closes a large number of MfDs shouldn't close further MfDs because of their "involvement" in past closures. As an active editor and administrator, I have worked in every corner of the encyclopedia, and there is always some article I have worked on or some discussion I have participated in that could be creatively stretched to be called a conflict in any discussion. With respect to the presence or absence of a backlog, I try to close a few RM discussions and a few AfDs every day. It is better for the project to have several administrators active in each space, and I actually was much more active in MfD closures several years ago, so really I am just resuming a previous level of administrative activity here. bd2412T 01:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
"indulge"?! I would not normally associate BHG with indulgences. However, I do not subscribe to that broad a view either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the use in the close of the adjective "clear" was clear overreach. An unqualified "consensus to keep" would be a stretch. A "rough consensus" easier to defend. A "no consensus" to delete would have been my call, largely due to the Portal redone claim followed by a lot of no consensus new discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Consensus was clear. There was indisputably substantially more support for keeping the portal than for deleting it. If I had said there was a strong consensus, however, that would have been an overreach. bd2412T 04:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. I think we differ on "clear". Perhaps you mean clear to an experienced Wikipedian, and I mean clear to a lesser Wikipedian who only skim reads. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem - I'm actually only a year ahead of you. If our Wikipedia careers were school children, mine would be an eighth-grader and yours would be in seventh. Soon they'll both be off to college. bd2412T 05:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
All right, you've convinced me. I guess we'll see if that portal stands the test of time then. ToThAc (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for disambiguating Governor Johnson. Would you be willing to do the same for Senator Tydings? I've thought about recreating it for a while, but since it's been speedy deleted once I would like to have a record of having discussed before recreating with at least one other editor.
The proposed contents of the page would be links to Millard Tydings, U.S. Senator from Maryland (1927-1951) and Joseph Tydings, U.S. Senator from Maryland (1965-1971) and Millard Tydings' son, in addition to a disambiguation template (probably {{disambiguation|tndis}}). Please ping if you're able to reply. Cheers, Airbornemihir (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Done, cheers! bd2412T 11:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brazier, Joseph. Since you had some involvement with the Brazier, Joseph redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted as created in error. Thanks. bd2412T 23:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Request for Consideration: Review of Article/Talk Church of the Creator - Substantial IP content - Protracted ® Litigationedit
I am in Wikipedia terms a COI, relative the Article "....Church of the Creator TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family Of URI, Inc. and its expression as a church, Church Of The Creator® was involved in an unusual Trademark Litigation. Currently the TALK page contains about 75% of the content, before it was deleted, now under "discussion." After praying, asking for W Editors who might review the discussion, you quickly came to my attention. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If Trademark, Litigation, multiple appeals are of interest to you, you might enjoy a look. Thank you. Michael S. Legions (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion already seems to be well-joined by experienced editors. bd2412T 02:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I edited the page Portal:Law while you were also doing so...I made a few changes I hope your OK with....as I said had no clue you were also there at the same time.--Moxy🍁 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: It worked out fine. Would you happen to know how to change the colors of the case and statute boxes within boxes? I want to make them a few shades lighter to make it clear that the surrounding box defines the concepts and the interior box provides an example. bd2412T 01:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I figured out what to do with it. bd2412T 01:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me look into color. ...I know {{Background color}} does not work in most portals....wonder if we could add a color parameter to the main template that transcluds. That said the line-break looks good.--Moxy🍁 01:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the line breaks are good enough. bd2412T 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! I saw your comment to SmokeyJoe in the article talk thread. As (co)proposer I'm obviously unqualified to serve as closer. Nonetheless I am carefully going through each comment with the goal of accurately summarizing the various perspectives per WP:OTHERSOPINION. It's a little ambiguous whether your comment was sort of an offhand remark to correct another editor's impression, of if you meant to offer a Not-Vote in the discussion for the closer to consider. If you have time, would you mind adding to the thread to clarify how the closer should read your input? Thanks!
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I have made a clarifying statement. bd2412T 19:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I hate to be a pest.... however, your updated comment that's a good NotVote for the NEXT round of discussion. To recap
If the immediate proposal passes, "climate change" will become a simple redirect pointing at the same text under new title Climate change (general concept.
Later we anticipate listing the "climate change" redirect at WP:Redirects for discussion, at which time your new comment will come into play.
However, the narrow scope of the babystep proposal (first bullet above) is to try to solve a PRIMARYTOPIC mismatch between the ambiguous title and contents. If the baby step passes, I expect progress on the other issues, which has always proven impossible when we try to jam all the tweaks into one discussion at one time. It seems like with 2 editors and one nuance you get three opinions. Add either another editor or another nuance and the opinions grow exponentially! So for the first time after years of failure, we're trying to do it in disciplined bite size pieces. if you care to comment on teh narrow baby step, please do! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer not to engage in half-measures. bd2412T 21:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. per WP:OTHERSOPINION would you object if I point out you agree about the PRIMARYTOPIC of "climate change" (being the info now at Global warming) but on the narrow question in the proposal you have "no comment" ?
No objection, go right ahead. bd2412T 22:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the brevity and clarity! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll refrain from posting stubs that could be obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GovernorLegislator (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
