User:BD2412/Archive 041

Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015 016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030 031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045 046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057 So, there's this article and I think it needs to be re-named but there's a lot of stuff to move... Anyway, way back when I worked up an article and then recently I took a look at it and thought...might be good enough for a GA...so I put it up for a GA Review. When I wrote the article it was the person's name Benjamin Franklin Graves. In December 2019, this article, along with a similarly named article were re-named by another editor: Benjamin Franklin Graves->Benjamin Franklin Graves (Kentucky), Benjamin F. Graves -> Benjamin F. Graves (Michigan)->Benjamin F. Graves (Michigan judge), plus there is now a disambiguation page Benjamin Franklin Graves. The GA Reviewer has mentioned that the title doesn't say anything about the man himself, like "Name (politician)" or whatever. I agree with the GA Reviewer and think the title of the article should be Benjamin Franklin Graves (soldier) or Benjamin Franklin Graves (Kentucky soldier) since that is what the Kentucky man is most well-known for. However, it gets a little sticky since I am in the middle of responding to Talk:Benjamin Franklin Graves (Kentucky)/GA1... is it proper form to change an article title in the middle of a Review? and then there are all the redirects or erased redirects... I am hoping you wouldn't mind changing the title for me, I've seen your account amongst the edits and was thinking you wouldn't mind. I'd do it myself but usually I'm a right royal cock-up in these types of things. If you'd rather not, don't have the time, it's somehow against MOS-process to enact a title-change in the middle of a GA Review or whatever, that's cool. It can wait. The title-change always kind of bothered me but seemed ok-ish, but then the Reviewer commented about it and I thought "Yes! That makes sense!". Thanks in advance - Shearonink (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Resolved, cheers! BD2412 T 04:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Cheers! Thanks for changing that title Here's to Benjamin Franklin Graves (soldier). HUZZAH. Shearonink (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Requesting help Hi, Saw your user page profile and felt encouraged to request help. Recently I created Qisas (disambiguation) but still I am not finding myself confident and bold enough to add it's links to all the articles where Word 'Qisas' occurs since I am not well versed with all template usages properly. Hence this request. Thanks warm regards and greetings Bookku (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC) The page looks reasonable to me, thanks. BD2412 T 15:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Rivers Thanks for the river moves, I guess. And thanks for pruning my list of the ones you moved. But what's motivating these, as opposed to waiting for the bot approval? Or is that I had failed to link my bot request Wikipedia:Bot requests#Move 500 River articles per consensus on tributary disambiguator where you would see it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Actually, I'm just killing some time while I think about other things. I'm just going to get through the B's. Really I'm thinking about how to revise the list of Rhode Island Supreme Court justices. BD2412 T 04:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC) OK. Carry on. Revise the SCOTUS while you're at it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Ha! That one is covered well enough. BD2412 T 04:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Adding {{OW}} to IP users talk page Hi. It seems we need to add {{OW}} to IP users talk page. I may let my bot to do this. Do we need this task? --Kanashimi (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I have asked about having a bot do this in the past and been denied, due to the restrictions on the pages to which the tag can be added. Strictly speaking, there should be no activity from the IP and no edits to the page for the past five years (although I sometimes apply it in obvious cases where there was, for example, a single post from the IP two or three years ago). If you can generate the appropriate list, have at it! BD2412 T 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Did I miss a fly ball I should've caught? - I apologize, BD2412 but for whatever reason, I'm not grasping the association you made about Black Rifle Coffee Company and Fox News at RSN. I don't want to clutter the discussion there, so I'm hoping you can explain why you think they are "promoting paid advertising as news". Are you thinking their promotion of that product is more like an infomercial rather than promoting veterans? Atsme Talk 📧 15:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC) There is indeed a tonal difference between primarily aiming to inform one's readers of something newsworthy, and primarily aiming to part those readers from their money in exchange for a commercial product. My concern was that the coverage Fox provided for this company specifically overstated its popularity and significance relative to what I was able to find when I went looking for additional sources to support those representations. Bear in mind that I was trying to write this draft (which I have now repurposed into a redirect) in January 2018, while the article that was ultimately written was started in May 2019. I should mention, my wife worked for a coffee company for a time, so I know the industry well enough to know what makes for notability within it. There are literally thousands of coffee companies, with dozens that are veteran owned and that support and employ veterans. I found the pattern of promotion of this specific company problematic, once I did the research. BD2412 T 17:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC) I never heard of Black Rifle Coffee before you mentioned it. Are you sure you're not conflating Fox Nation and the pundit/opinion shows on the Fox News Channel with its actual news hours, such as with Neil Cavuto, Bret Baier, Bill Hemmer, and Shannon Bream? That is one of the reasons I was concerned about the RfC. I don't subscribe to Fox Nation, and Fox News comes with my DirecTv package along with CNN, MSNBC, etc. so I have seen previews of Fox Nation which is their entertainment streaming service which televises most of the human interest stories. I do know that Fox News Channel has always been supportive of law enforcement and the military but they're also supportive of Chick-fil-A. Mark Wahlberg does what he can to help wounded veterans, and yes, it's good PR for celebrities but there is also the human aspect at play here. As for advertising dollars, see this bit of info. I need something more than a hunch to think Fox News Channel would exploit veterans for $$, and I certainly wouldn't let a hunch influence my decision about a network's reliability. I need cold, hard facts so if you have a link that raises a red flag here, please do share it. As for thousands of coffee companies, that may be true globally, but here on Bonaire, I have my choice of 3 maybe 4 brands, and its rare to find any coffee from the US. The Dutch like their coffee strong enough to bend a spoon. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC) To be clear, I saw the article on the Fox News website, and not in the "Opinion" section. I actually don't have cable TV at all (I don't consider it a worthwhile investment given the volume of information and entertainment options available online). As for the ends to which the company might go to make money—well, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits, so whether that has outweighed journalistic integrity is an open question. BD2412 T 01:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Is this the article you're talking about? Atsme Talk 📧 01:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC) No, it was the one I linked in the discussion - "'Pro-America' Black Rifle Coffee becoming popular among conservatives, founder says". BD2412 T 01:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC) That's on the Fox Business website, BD - not Fox News. We expect to hear about businesses on foxbusiness.com whereas on foxnews.com we expect to read about the news & current events with headlines like "Striking details of riot arrests revealed, including helicopter laser strikes, precinct arson". You had me going for a while there. Atsme Talk 📧 01:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC) The link that led me to that story was on the Fox News website - you can see it on the archived version of the page for that date. There was no indication on the website that it was anything but a Fox News story. BD2412 T 01:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC) It makes sense that the link to the story would be on the main page, not unlike Wikipedia's main page with all the links. The article header says it was written by Julia Limitone | FOX Business. Main pages have all kinds of links, promos & advertising, some of which will be links to sister projects. That's normal - look at CNN's site. Now they've added the Fox Nation promo with a link to it on the foxnews.com main page, but Fox Nation isn't "the news". Oh well, it's not a biggy. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Sleep well. Atsme Talk 📧 02:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Farley, California (disambiguation) If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Farley, California (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either 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 a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information. 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)  Done BD2412 T 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC) List of American films of 2022 On March 30, you create-protected this title with a note of "Shenanigan protection". There have been shenanigans about it since then. Did the create-protection get lifted or expired or bypassed? If so, can you re-protect it? There are shenanigans about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC) I can protect the title, but I can't do anything to stop another admin from moving the article from draft to mainspace, which thereby dissolves the protection previously placed on the title. BD2412 T 01:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC) New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020 Hello BD2412, Your help can make a difference NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages. Discussions and Resources A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump. Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion. A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus. Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images. Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271 To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Need your attention against Chinese revisionism I had read your requested move proposal on Talk:Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China. You need to focus more on this topic including articles about the Yuan dynasty. Checkout these articles Tibet under Yuan rule, Manchuria under Yuan rule, and especially Mongolia under Yuan rule. That is ridiculous. How can it Mongolia under Mongol rule???????? Since the Yuan was a Mongol state. Why did they miss out China under Mongol (Yuan) rule?????? The article Korea under Yuan rule had been renamed to Goryeo under Mongol rule. My proposal is that u should request a deletion of "Mongolia under Yuan rule" or merge it with "Yuan dynasty". As for 3 articles, you should create a requested move proposal to Tibet under Mongol rule, Manchuria under Mongol rule. Why? Because these countries were already conquered by the Mongol well BEFORE the proclamation of the Great Yuan. We should use a general term for the whole period. 152.130.1.16 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Please note that I did not propose to move the article in question; I merely closed the discussion. If you wish to address the proposer for that move, that would be User:Hemant Dabral. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Hugh Hastings (soldier, died 1347) Since the old title was not ambiguous, what basis is there for this move? This applies to his son and grandson as well. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC) The specific contention raised by User:Necrothesp in the discussion was that the year alone was a poor identifier of who the subject is. There was a clear consensus favoring moving the year-only titles away from their current status, but moving Hugh Hastings (died 1347) to Hugh Hastings (soldier) would only perpetuate ambiguity, as the son and grandson were also primarily notable for being soldiers (and, in fact, even the playwright had a substantial record of military service). I interpreted this as consensus to move all of these to titles indicating that the subjects were soldiers, and since the only other distinguishing factor about them was their year of death, that they should further be disambiguated by that information. BD2412 T 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC) But if the year is not a good disambiguator and "Hugh Hastings (soldier)" requires disambiguating... I fail to see how this solves the problem. But then, there is no problem. The original title was unambiguous and clear. Is there another Hugh Hastings who died in 1347? Why do we require more disambiguation than that? Especially when it isn't much disambiguation, since as you point out they were all soldiers. Srnec (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Well, if you didn't know anything about any of these Hugh Hastings, now you know from the titles that they were all soldiers. BD2412 T 01:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Exactly. User:Srnec, it is usual procedure not to just use dates of birth or death, but to add a descriptor as well. This is usually how we disambiguate when we have more than one person with the same occupation. Otherwise why don't we just use dates of birth or death as disambiguators in all cases and forget occupational disambiguators entirely? The reason is that users usually have some idea of what the person they're looking for did for a living, but may well not have more than a very hazy idea of when they were born or died. The latter is therefore only used as a secondary disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Formula One pre-season testing I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Formula One pre-season testing as no consensus to delete, and leaning towards keep. But very few of the keep votes actually gave a policy based discussion, they just said "lots of sources". But my source evaluation- which I did 3 days ago and all the keep voters have decided to ignore- shows that the sources in the article aren't significant coverage at all. So I don't feel like this was a justifiable closure. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Your own analysis of the sources identifies three good sources. More than that is not needed for an article on the subject to exist. BD2412 T 15:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC) It lists one as good, and a couple as decent. That isn't enough. Deletion review started here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Well, best of luck with that. BD2412 T 17:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Presidential primary RMs I'll move some of them to help. Starzoner (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Good - start with the W's and we'll meet in the middle. BD2412 T 17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Should be done? Starzoner (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Looks done, but for a few stray talk pages - thanks! BD2412 T 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Executive order Would you look at the move history of executive order, and fix it, if need be. I was about to move it, to "Executive order (United States)", but the move history says you did that in 2017, and nothing after that but it's not moved, or something? (sorry, for my confusion) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, I will have a look shortly. Thanks. BD2412 T 16:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker: Per Talk:Executive order#Requested move 14 April 2018, this was previously moved from Executive order (United States) to Executive order. The move discussion does not define the primacy particularly well, but I gather that the primary topic of the phrase "Executive order" in the English-speaking world is the long-established instrumentality of this kind of decree in the United States. BD2412 T 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Promotion only account Mind blocking User:Jaan jaani6 Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC) I am just stepping out, and will be back to have a look at this shortly. Thanks. BD2412 T 16:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Browniesandicecreamcake Hi BD2412, You previously blocked this user for 31 hours for disruptive editing despite my thorough warnings. I just found out that they've returned to make the exact same disruptive edit (changing Obama's infobox portrait on the 2008 U.S. presidential election page) without any discussion. They made the edit as an IP, were reverted, logged in, and reverted the revert. They marked their edit as minor. Since you blocked them, I see that there have been numerous warnings about sockpuppet editing and abuse of the minor edit feature on their talk page as well as on their IP talk page. I left another warning. Given the large number of warnings, I think another block is necessary to prevent further disruption. Can you please look into that? Thanks. — Tartan357  (Talk) 01:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC) I blocked them for 72 hours. If they return to this behavior after that, they will likely be blocked for a much longer time. BD2412 T 16:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Me again, the re-namer.... I need some advice and some help. I have submitted List of cyclists with a cycling-related death for FLC - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cyclists with a cycling-related death/archive2 and a reviewer has suggested some possible title changes. Is this proposed title ok re: WP-naming conventions? List of cyclists and pacemakers who died in cycle racing-related incidents If you want to see the FLC posts about this please refer to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cyclists with a cycling-related death/archive2#Possible title changes. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC) It's lengthy, but not impermissible. BD2412 T 16:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Ok, thanks. The length is fine that's good and it's not disallowed, that's good. Can you take a look at the Possible title changes section and tell me what you think of the other possible titles? The FLC process is somewhat opaque to me so I don't want to get the title changed and then stumble into another unforeseen issue, *because* of the new title. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) And, I must say...I think the WP:GAC process and the WP:FAC process are much easier to navigate and to understand. There's only one List I've ever really worked up (twice!) to what I thought were FL standards but apparently not... It does seem to me that the WP:FLC process is somewhat capricious. Interested editors happen by and post suggestions according to their thoughts/predilections/editing-style - which is great...at least I was and am getting feedback but the goalposts seem to get moved every time. I almost never say never but I doubt I'll ever attempt a FLC again. Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Once the new title is agreed-upon by whomever posts at the FLC I'll come back here and will then ask for you to pleeeease do all the requested & necessary changes. Hold off for now. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Are you not going to file an WP:RM? That would be the most appropriate way to go about effecting the page moves. BD2412 T 20:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I know I could do it myself but I also know that changing all the wikilinks will be problematic for me...there are so many and I don't want to forget any and to probably mess up the List since it is in the middle of its FLC. I probably won't file a WP:RM because there are requests on there dating from May...and I don't want to add more days onto the FLC process if I don't have to. I'll take another look at it, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. If I do decide I might eff it up I'll just ask an admin for some help. Frankly I am thinking of giving up on the FLC at this point. When I've done GAs and my one FA the processes were much easier to understand and respond to, I feel like I am no closer to getting the List through to FL than when I started. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure what you are requesting. If the article is moved and a redirect is left behind, there is no particular need to change incoming links. BD2412 T 21:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC) It's fine I'll figure it out, just that today has not been a good day. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Draft:Scarlett Estevez I think I'd look for recent sourcing mentioning her participation with Lucifer seasons 5 and 6, and see if you can find at least one "profile" article specifically on Estevez, and resubmit it to AfC. I'm not sure why it was rejected the first time – the sources currently used at this article all look up to snuff, so I find the "decline" rationale from February to be odd. I would say the only thing missing right now is one or two in-depth profile sources on Estevez specifically, and then it should be ready to go in WP:Mainspace... Just my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC) I don't disagree, but it wouldn't hurt to find more material for the article first. BD2412 T 16:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Alfred G. Schroeder has been accepted Alfred G. Schroeder, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Nicely done. BD2412 T 17:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for all your contributions Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit. Can I remind you of the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC) My practice is sufficient, thanks. BD2412 T 17:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Please Unprotect "Triple The Mogul" Page Hi BD2412 i see you have protetcted the "Triple The Mogul" Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_The_Mogul&action=history. From reading the AfD, i see the primary issue was lack of notability and reliable sources. However, in the past few weeks he has been in the news tremendously with his new Boxing League with famous musician Sean Kingston . Here are a few links from The Blast, Jerusalem Post and The Source magazine, all of which i believe properly reach the criteria for WP:BASIC. https://theblast.com/c/sean-kingston-professional-boxing-league-rappers-ufc https://www.jpost.com/special-content/jewish-rapper-triple-the-mogul-teams-up-with-sean-kingston-to-start-pro-boxing-league-for-rappers-632748 https://thesource.com/2020/06/22/sean-kingston-boxing/ Can you please unprotect the page so i can edit it ? Jayzhizbovvs (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) As this article has been repeatedly deleted, I will not unprotect the mainspace title. Create your draft at Draft:Triple The Mogul, and once you are satisfied that it meets the standards for inclusion, submit it for review through the usual WP:AFC process. BD2412 T 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Manzanita I'm trying to clean up Manzanita, Butte County, California which was moved from Fagan per AfD. As it stands, the location and other data from Fagan was simply reused, even though we don't have a source to support its application to Manzanita. Do you have any suggestions for sourcing this information so that we can at least have a viable and verifiable stub? –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC) I was persuaded by User:CactusJack's assertion that maps of differing resolutions showed these two named for the same location. There is also, for example, "Fruit Growers Meet", The Sutter County Farmer (May 12, 1899), p. 5, which states: "On Saturday, April 29th, occurred a meeting of fruit growers at Manzanita school house near the Fagan ranch..." which suggests, if not inclusion, then adjacency. BD2412 T 02:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC) This is a tough one because Cactus Jack's assessment is probably right, but it's also WP:OR and unverifiable since we don't have anything connecting Fagan and Manzanita besides a name on a map. A lot of sources mention Manzanita in passing as a local landmark, but I'm not finding anything that discusses it in depth or actually explains what or where it was. The current article is the type of thing that we routinely delete due to lack of verifiability or notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC) What I can tell for sure is that there are a handful of references to a Manzanita farm center, and a contemporaneous Manzanita School District currently identified as being in Gridley. A Manzanita School was established in 1868, with a building erected in 1873 that also apparently served as the meeting-place for matters of commerce involving the Manzanita farm center. The school still exists, which actually probably makes it independently notable for being a 150+ year-old school apparently in continuous operation. BD2412 T 04:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC) I've opened a deletion review to try to get more input. –dlthewave ☎ 00:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, it's a conundrum. BD2412 T 01:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Deletion review for Employsure An editor has asked for a deletion review of Employsure. 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. Deus et lex (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC) I have replied in the discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Move review BD, based on the discussion that included you at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#MOS:SPORTCAPS_might_need_revision, I think I'll file a move review now for 1978 NHL Amateur Draft. Say more here or the other discussion if you want. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, of course. I very nearly suggested that myself. BD2412 T 23:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC) "List of minerals Y–Z (complete)" listed at Redirects for discussion A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of minerals Y–Z (complete). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#List of minerals Y–Z (complete) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) My only involvement was in closing the move request and carrying out the requested move. I have no interest in the subject beyond that. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC) User:Hitterfann Might need to do an SPI to check for sleepers.-KH-1 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Unfortunately, I am not a CU. BD2412 T 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Another block needed ASAP FlankDrain (talk · contribs). -KH-1 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Assistance Hello, I would like to know if there is a group somewhere on Wikipedia or project where I may receive inspiration or helpful tips and tricks when it comes to growing my editing style. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Forgive me for bothering you, but I appear to have found it on the sidebar menu. Apologies for disturbing you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC) No problem. If you're looking for practice building articles from the ground up, I have about 1,200 missing state supreme court justices yearning to be created. BD2412 T 05:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Will do. Thank you!!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Redirect out of Disambiguation? BD2412, was wondering if you could assist me on this. I was trying to make "Solti" a redirect for Georg Solti but ran into this disambiguation page, not sure how to create a redirect when the disambiguation already exists, but it is definitely warranted as the disambiguation page only lists Georg Solti, Valerie Pitts (his wife) and Krisztina Solti (a random Hungarian high jumper). Best - Aza24 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)  Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC) List of MIT frats and srats Could you elaborate on your closing comment? While I don't agree, I can understand the argument for keeping the list as a navigational aid. However, I don't think GNG was ever firmly established, which is why I'm a bit surprised that you suggested expanding the list into an article.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC) There is substantial unsourced but historically interesting content in the article as it is currently written. An article on the history of Greek life at this institution would be a more encyclopedic topic than a mere list of organizations, although there is consensus to maintain the latter. BD2412 T 02:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Rationale required please Hi BD2412, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom). I just wondered if you could provide your rationale for the 'keep' result, particularly with respect to the stringent requirements in WP:ORGCRIT. ORGCRIT requires that to be notable an organisation: "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'm not sure that has been demonstrated to the extent demanded by WP:SIRS is at the moment. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 05:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC) There is clearly a consensus in the discussion that the sources cited meet that standard. It is correctly noted that when a governing body brings a representative of an organization before it to discuss the work of that organization, the documentation of that event is coverage of the organization. BD2412 T 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC) And yet none, let alone multiple (as required by WP:ORGCRIT), of the cited sources gave significant coverage which "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". Ho-hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Dispute on the 'FBI files on Michael Jackson' Article BD2412, there is an ongoing dispute occurring on the FBI files on Michael Jackson article. Both TruthGuardians [1] and ThunderPeel2001 [2] were blocked for 36 hours. ThunderPeel2001 removed large portions of the article without any prior discussion on the Talk page per MJ sanctions. Part of the problem is, when there is actual disruption or vandalism, editors may revert (up to three times within a day). Rules on edit warring aren't clear enough, both were blocked, but from what I see, there was actual disruption. These types of battles have been occurring on MJ-related articles (because of the highly controversial nature of the allegations against Jackson) for awhile now. Israell (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC) It's possibly worth noting that Israell has been banned for a week for breaking WP:3RR on this article. (ThunderPeel2001) WikiMane11 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Understood, but that it not particularly relevant to the substance of the content dispute. BD2412 T 18:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC) I agree. WikiMane11 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Just a note, I was unblocked on appeal. BD2412, I have composed my response on the dispute resolution noticeboard. [3] I'd like to direct your attention to the fact three other editors involved in the discussion still were not notified. Israell (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC) List of American films of 2021 I think this page needs semi protection permanently and the IP needs to be blocked. Starzoner (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC) I have my hands full at the moment with a voluminous paid editing investigation. BD2412 T 18:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Diligence Kudos on checking through all those wikiprofessionals inc articles! That was a serious amount of work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Was that work? I thought it was fun. Somewhat tedious fun, but still. BD2412 T 00:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion 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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! WikiMane11 (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Bob Abbott has been accepted Bob Abbott, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Alex M. Fromme has been accepted Alex M. Fromme, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Your AWB edit on Jagannath Temple, Puri Just letting you know, that in your AWB edit on page Jagannath Temple, Puri you have introduced usage of template {{18}}, which has been fixed. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Odd. I didn't intentionally introduce the template, but someone else had previously added {{18}, and AWB fixed it as a bracket error. BD2412 T 16:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Draft:Boyce C. Clayton Hi, I've padded out Draft:Boyce C. Clayton with as much as I can find - and can find no indication of DOB or if they are still alive. Do you think it's enough? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC) I'll look into it a bit. If it's all we have, then it will need to be enough. BD2412 T 16:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks! Ahh G not C... no wonder I could find so little, I really should have spotted that. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC) That's my fault, as I created the draft at the wrong title. All good now! BD2412 T 17:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Nelson Sharpe has been accepted Nelson Sharpe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC) My turn Robert H. Boyle - I just created this stub, and decided to take extra precautions because I worked with Bob back in the 90s when I produced Sturgeon: Ancient Survivors. I thought about him when I wrote last month's op-ed for The Signpost, but for some reason, I thought he already had a WP article. Anyway, I can do most of the heavy lifting but your collaboration would be very much appreciated, and it will also serve to avoid any potential COI issue. It is rather difficult for me to create articles in my area of interest because I've worked with quite a few notables, some of whom I prefer to forget. Anyway, who knows...I'm thinking that as long as it's well sourced, and you're collaborating with me, there shouldn't be a problem. I trust your input and know that the article will benefit as a result. Atsme Talk 📧 00:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC) It would be my pleasure to help! BD2412 T 00:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC) I uploaded a clip of Boyle which demonstrates his passion as a conservationist. I will leave it up to you if you think it should be included. Also, what do you think about an infobox for the bio? Atsme Talk 📧 21:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC) @Atsme: An infobox would be fine. I like the video clip, and would think that if the video is available under a free license then a still from the video could be used as a page image. BD2412 T 22:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC) I uploaded the clip under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 so yes, it's available. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)  Done BD2412 T 01:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Please see .... User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Move review for Murder in Texas An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder in Texas. Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Austin M. Cowan has been accepted Austin M. Cowan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Winn Holmes has been accepted Richard Winn Holmes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert H. Kaul has been accepted Robert H. Kaul, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Frederick N. Six has been accepted Frederick N. Six, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC) That's as much as I can find about them. The last I found was they were alive and active in 2014 now using the name Fred rather than Frederick, but couldn't find any relevant information to add. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Clair E. Robb has been accepted Clair E. Robb, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Edward Larson (Kansas judge) has been accepted Edward Larson (Kansas judge), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: David Prager (Kansas judge) has been accepted David Prager (Kansas judge), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider . Thanks again, and happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Reason for deleting the Gaby Natale biographical page I just found out that a Wikipedia page with the biography of Gaby Natale, my wife, was deleted on July 14, 2020 per your request. Could you please explain the rationale? I respectfully request that the page be restored. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures for undeletion; my apologies in advance if this is not the proper channel to request it. Regards, Andres O. Suarez --Aosuarez (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) This page was deleted because it was listed by the company Wikiprofessionals Inc. on their website as a page that they created for pay, in violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#wikiprofessionals inc. Investigation of the edit history of the page turned up suspicious activity in the form of a short-lived single-purpose account active in the production of the page. This set of circumstances left the administrators with no choice but to delete this page, along with other pages claimed to have been made by the same company and having the same issues in its edit history. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Wikiprofessionals Inc, and paid editing. Please feel free to create a new draft at Draft:Gaby Natale, and to submit this through the usual WP:AFC process once completed. BD2412 T 23:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)