Regarding this. FYI I have been fixing bare URLs for over 6 years. I manage to check each page when I am done and fix the problems that BHG is ignoring. Speaking as someone who has much the same WP:ITIS as she does I understand her desire to rack up as many edits in a day as possible. I also feel that it is worth my time to be as thorough as possible in my work. She does not. I am not posting there due to unpleasant interactions with her in the past. It is likely that this is unpleasant for you to have to read so please feel free to remove it at your discretion and I hope you can forgive my venting on your talk page, but, will certainly understand if you can't. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC).
It is, nonetheless, an arduous task, and a net benefit. BD2412T 22:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I know it is arduous - I've done tens of thousands of them. It is also worth doing them correctly and not causing unnecessary work for others. MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acceptability 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.
Can you please help me fix the broken table of the video albums? It would be great if you can. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
That's extraordinary. Just when we think we can't be more impressed with, and thankful for a contributor, here you go and put deletion on the mainpage after all. Shouldn't we completely revalue people who "delete" the mainpage? BusterD (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello. You recently blocked this account Mohmood20
[1]
for a period of 31 hrs but this account needs to be blocked indefinitely as the user is trying to impersonate me and vandalizing pages in trying to jeopardize my account. I believe its the user Aj Indiana [2] who was reported by me for Edit warring and was blocked indefinitely on 5 November 2021. Seems like he created a new account impersonating me in trying to jeopardize my account. Even going as far as redirecting his page to mine. [3]. MehmoodS (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Update: Mohmood20 has been blocked indefinitely for impersonation. MehmoodS (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Good to hear that this has wrapped itself up. BD2412T 16:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to ask if you could explain the reasoning behind the restoration of G5-deleted pages Antonio F. Díaz and Anacleto Medina. You wrote: "G5 is not a suicide pact". Could you explain what that means? Additionally, could you explain why you chose to restore the pages unilaterally, instead of going through the DRV process? Thanks, Pilaz (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I am in the midst of a months-long project to create disambiguation pages for similarly-named generals, and these articles are on my lists; it is necessary to have them so that the most complete set of potentially ambiguous meanings can be provided to readers who come across an unexpanded reference to such a person (i.e. a source that says that "General Foo" did something without specifying which "General Foo"). G5 is not a mandatory basis for deletion. It is a permissive basis, but not a requirement, and should be used with discretion rather than as a mindless exercise. It does the encyclopedia no good to delete neutrally written articles on qualifying subjects, and it does me no good to have red links on disambiguation pages. As for the DRV process, what would be the point of asking myself on a message board to restore a page, and then granting myself that request there? BD2412T 18:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and for shedding light on your current work. As for G5, you are right to remind that deletion is a may rather than a must, but as you'll surely have noticed I have only used G5 for biographies lacking credible claims or coverage justifying notability. I've kept all the officeholders susceptible of passing WP:NPOL and other major figures passing other SNGs. The reason for this is because I was going to submit them all those failing the GNG to AfD anyway, and I am confident that all but a few would have been deleted. All were created by a blocked user attempting to make Wikipedia their personal genealogy website (SPI), which is not what Wikipedia is about, and who used Google Books to refbomb their original research with namechecks (at best). G5 also has deterrent value, and we on Wikipedia get to decide what to keep and what to delete. With respect to General Díaz (who qualifies for NPOL), I applied WP:TNT based on this essay. As for DRV, I'm going to apply the same philosophy as you did for G5: just because you can avoid going through DRV doesn't mean you must. And unlike DRV, unless I am mistaken, there is nothing that explicitly allows you do so unilaterally, so DRV should have been the preferred venue regardless. Besides, Wikipedia is based on consensus, and as an administrator you have a duty of accountability to the rest of Wikipedia, and not hide under cryptic explanations such as "G5 isn't a suicide pact" . With that being said, I wish you the best in your disambiguation work. Pilaz (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pilaz: I do appreciate your efforts and your motivations. While the identified sockpuppet may have had less noble motivations, I would strongly prefer that deficient articles be tagged for their deficiencies first, and materials worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia be kept to the greatest extent possible. BD2412T 20:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know, I actually hadn't thought about tagging said deficiencies before going through G5. I'll try my best to apply your recommendations in the future. Pilaz (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, just a heads up: there is a chance I may nominate Anacleto Medina for deletion after I run a deep search for sources this week. I'll be sure to ping you if I do. Pilaz (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
As for the DRV process, what would be the point of asking myself on a message board to restore a page, and then granting myself that request there? Well yes, but it's a widely accepted norm that an editor involved in a discussion (including the nominator) should not close that discussion. I do think it would have been prudent to either discuss undeletion with the admin who originally performed the deletion(s) or open a DRV discussion (to be closed by an uninvolved admin). Colin M (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with that, but I was not involved in the discussion in any capacity (nor does it appear that there was any actual discussion). I merely noticed the red links after the fact. BD2412T 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
What I mean is that if you were to open a DRV discussion, then you would be involved in that discussion, hence why it wouldn't make sense for you to close said discussion. Colin M (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello sir, thnk you for keeping page in draft. I saw a new review in Cinema Express[4] after film come back on Kannada OTT. Now thr are 2 reviews. I think it makes Anusha rai actor notable now. Mahanubhavaru is already there. And Karshanam has two reviews [5], [6]. Please help. Ntkn769 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thus far it appears that most editors involved with this article are sockpuppets with an undisclosed interest. I will presume the same of you as well. BD2412T 15:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
No sir BD2412. Idon't know how to give you proof...but I am not involved with any. I told before also, I am a big fan of Anusha and would lyk to see her page on Wikipedia. is it conflict of interest? i read about that too. if you thnk it is that, i can put tag for coi on my page. if it helps i mean. pls suggest Ntkn769 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Being a fan does not constitute a COI. I would suggest adding whatever sources you want to add to the article and then submitting it through the regular WP:AFC review process. I see no reason to deviate from that process here. BD2412T 15:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay sir, I did what you said..Ntkn769 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you please help me expand the remaining bare URL in this article? Especially ref numbers 114,115, 123, 136. Thanks in advance.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, there is a challenge. BD2412T 18:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Would it be inappropriate for me to close the Bulbul Statue AfD?edit
Hi! I saw that you were involved in the AfD related to the Bulbul Statue. I was lurking through AfD and saw that it was still open, but after reading the page I believe there is a) clear consensus the subject does not merit a stand-alone article, and within that b) there is consensus to merge to the Bulbul article. I'm wondering if it is appropriate for non-admins to make closures regarding merging from an article to another. If that is the case, I'll close the discussion on Saturday since it seems discussion on the AfD has stabilized since the 20th. Santacruz⁂Please tag me! 13:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Although it sounds reasonable, WP:NACAFD appears to limit non-admin AfD closures to clear keep votes. BD2412T 18:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412,
I have a question. Does this consensus [7] also pertain to infobox? It is clear that it strictly only refers to the lede. Justin Bieber has 220 songwriting credits [8], and addition to the infobox is therefore justified. For that reason, I’ve made this bold edit: [9]. Israell (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see anything substantial offhand, and would actually suggest making this a section of Simulations Publications, Inc., with a section redirect pointing there. That provides a place for additional sources to be added if any are found, until the section becomes substantial enough to break out into an article. BD2412T 06:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you please tell me how to fix the cases where the reference has been copied text from Wikipedia?. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything to be "fixed" in those cases. It seems to just be informational, so the next reviewer to come along understands that this is not a case of Wikipedia being the copyist. BD2412T 17:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Abuse of administrator's privileges -- abuse of poweredit
You provide no evidence that I have abused my editing privileges. Apparently, you have chosen to take a certain editor's side when it comes to reverts. One need only look at the history of reverts to see your bias. BrandonTRA (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Your edit history on that article is blatantly sufficient. Deleting warnings doesn't mean they are not part of the record. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You closed Talk:Barsby, Leicestershire#Requested move 22 November 2021 as "No consensus to move" with the comment "there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move at this time". This however was a discussion to move back to the long-standing base name title which it was at from its creation in 2007 until the undiscussed move 2 days before the discussion started per WP:RMNOMIN "if an article is created at Soda can and stays there for years prior to being WP:BOLDly moved to pop can, and a move request is filed leading to a decision of "no consensus", the article must be moved back to its longstanding title". It was originally filed under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" but I stated that having no primary topic was also an option. ! editor supported the move being reverted, 1 editor suggested nether the village or surname was primary, 1 editor suggested just having a DAB with no surname article and 1 editor suggested keeping the surname at the base name. I'm not seeing a consensus for the undiscussed primary topic swap. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: Your analysis is correct, but no one said anything about this in the discussion. I have restored the status quo ante. BD2412T 19:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, there were indeed reasonable arguments on both sides and the issue can probably be revisited some time (with pageviews for the surname v village) but for now its a WP:2DABS situation anyway so those looking for the surname still only have 1 click from the place it was named after. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently changed a number of links from Ceylonese, a dab page, to Ceylonese. I don't think Demographics of Sri Lanka is appropriate. Ceylonese would be more appropriate as Ceylon redirects to Sri Lanka and in most instances that is the meaning of Ceylonese.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the instances that I changed referred to Ceylonese people, which has itself been a redirect to Demographics of Sri Lankafor over ten years. These edits were therefore merely restoring what was already the redirect target for the term in these articles. BD2412T 19:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Done, cheers! BD2412T 20:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.
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! ? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a recently enacted basis for deletion, so perhaps the template has just not been created yet. I deleted the page as G6 (routine housekeeping). BD2412T 19:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello @BD2412: how are you? , can you help me to review this article please and if it is ok move it to main spcae thank you --Wikipedian Loves Editing (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
As I do not speak Turkish, I am unable to evaluate the sources. Moreover, I have found that when I am solicited by a new editor to review a draft, it is generally part of some improper activity. BD2412T 06:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
sorry for this issue ,But there is news in these pages about Article " turkish well-known sites" according Alexa and this famous Turkish news site covered the site Ensonhaber and Google NewsT54.com.trBuyuksivas.com and https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/ortadoguhaberleri and you can use google translate as you like and I ask you about the format of the article as well and if it is encyclopedic and appropriate also registered as an independent media platform in the State of Qatar at the Ministry of Economy and Commerce --Wikipedian Loves Editing (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It is outside of my area of comfort. I am suspicious, however, that your first edit is a fully-formatted article. Have you previously edited Wikipedia under another username? BD2412T 07:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes @BD2412: I made some edits but I don't remember my other account in some articles related to Turkey , Can you make some appropriate edits or move the article to the main space Thank you and stay safe --Wikipedian Loves Editing (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
What edits did you make under your other account? BD2412T 07:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps in some articles related to Turkish politicians and Turkish cities , I don't remember the account at all ,Because I'm busy with my PhD --Wikipedian Loves Editing (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
If you can remember which articles and edits let me know. I need to evaluate that information before I proceed with anything. BD2412T 07:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Only three editors have edited Vedat Demiröz, and I know the other two, so that leaves User:Aliaboomar. I think that is you. BD2412T 07:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
This (Beyond the fact that I must notice that you, like Mathsci, are following me around) is nonsense, per WP:NOTBURO: having a separate discussion to disambiguate is only a waste of time, and if the only argument people have against the move is "it should be reverted because it was undiscussed" (and for the most of them, that was their only argument), then that's nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning. The only reason I'm not taking to move review is because it's faster to open a new one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I am not "following you around". I have a personal rule that when I initiate a new RM, I close one in the backlog. Since I had just created Talk:James Watson (soldier)#Requested move 24 December 2021, I looked for a discussion in the backlog that was ripe for closing, and picked this one because the outcome was so straightforward. The burden of gaining consensus for a page move is on the editor proposing the move, even if that consensus is sought after the fact. There was not consensus for the original move, and it was never going to manifest in that discussion. It is a core policy of Wikipedia that in the absence of consensus where consensus is required, the situation is restored to the status quo ante. Please bear in mind that there is no WP:DEADLINE; it is worth it to take the time to do things right. I could have boldly moved James Watson (soldier) rather than initiating a discussion, but by going through the process we reach a more certain and enduring outcome. BD2412T 19:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 19:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, and happy new year! BD2412T 19:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
BD2412, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year, B2412! Other than that, I've fully cleaned up the Matt Murdock draft to satisfy some notability. Is there any issues that need to be fixed before potentially moving it to the mainspace? Thanks, SirDot (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
Hi BD2412! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
