Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohana (surname)edit
Please help me understand the AfD comment. I was merging content with the same title. Someone added a reference after, and it was not needed. There has been quite a bit of reverting, templating and disruptive editing. I was thinking that I was doing my job as in NPP. Bruxton (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel like you're trolling. You should no better than to delete references for contested content. At this point, I am inclined to block you myself. BD2412T 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I am quite shocked. Have you looked at my contributions? I am never trolling. The reference was added after you suggested it at the RFC. Perhaps next time you can discuss with me before ramping things up to blocks. I am taking a break now. Bruxton (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
It is basic policy that any editor can improve an AfD-nominated article. WP:DISCUSSAFD specifically says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples". BD2412T 22:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I certainly know that. It looked like an attempt to thwart the redirect following your suggestion. There did not seem to be a good reason to have separate pages for the same Ohana. I have come across many pages with sections for people, buildings, works of art etc. I certainly can learn without being trouted, blocked or chastized. I thought I was improving the project, imagine my surprise when you said I was destroying it and I should be blocked. Bruxton (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If a redirect can be "thwarted" by the addition of sources demonstrating that it can be presented as a separate topic, then it absolutely should be. That is exactly what the policy promotes, and how an encyclopedia is built. BD2412T 23:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel like you are messing with me. I combined two simple lists. The dab creator started an RFC. You went to the RFC and told the editor they should add refs - they added a single reference. Then you came to the AfD and told me I should be trouted, TBANNED and blocked because a dab page cannot have refs. So I then erase the ref because it is a dab page and you said a dab page cannot have refs. Then you threaten to take me to ani. And say I am trolling. Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
You did not delete the ref from the dab page, you deleted it from the surname page, which is supposed to have refs. This is the same article that you have nominated for deletion. This is impermissible. BD2412T 00:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
We can go round and round with your bad faith assumptions. Me I am thinking you said, there cannot be references in a dab page. So I erased the reference from the two dab pages. That is what they were: Ohana (surname) dab page and Ohana (disambiguation). FYI I started a thread on NPP talk so that others can learn from this experience. Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Surname pages are not disambiguation pages. I apologize for assuming that you were aware of this. Now you know. BD2412T 01:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
When they are a short list of names they are no different than a dab page. That was the reason for the redirect. Per MOS:DABNAME - a surname heading was added to the target dab like hundreds of other dab pages. This was a bad experience all around. Bruxton (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Read the last line of the section you just linked, MOS:DABNAME. Read it carefully. BD2412T 01:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
You said yourself at the RFC it was not wrong to have it in the DAB: They sometimes get included in disambiguation pages if there are only a handful, but that is not the ideal practice.MOS:DABNAME states the same: There are two options for listing name-holders. A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page, or alternatively in sections such as People with the surname. You can point to all manner of guides to make a point. My point is you came after a good faith reviewer with threats - it did not have to be that way. Bruxton (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
As I said, I apologize for assuming that you were aware of the distinction. Having worked on disambiguation and anthroponymy for seventeen years, it is easy to forget that other editors may jump into the area with good intentions but a lack of context for specific aims of the project in these areas. BD2412T 02:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
BD2414, and add in SIAs too - this is an area with intricate distinctions that are easy to overlook. This seems to me to be mostly a misundersanding. NPP is struggling to keep up, let's please try to not discourage anyone that is trying their best. Thank you for apologizing and please AGF. MB 02:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments above BD2412. I gave myself some time off to reflect on my own actions. I will not make the same mistake about surname pages on NPP patrol. It seems the guideline has ambiguity but I have now read the Anthroponymy project's goals. I look forward to working with you in the future. Happy Labor Day. Bruxton (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, we're good. We're all learning here, and you're doing good things for the encyclopedia. BD2412T 17:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I used to do lots of wikipedia editing years ago, but not lately, so I've forgotten the appropriate procedures. I got your details from the "recent admins" list.
Someone keeps adding reference to a James Karat on the Straight-through processing page, despite a long-ago settled rfc one the talk page Talk:Straight-through processing saying consensus is to remove all references to James Karat and the assertion that he invented straight-through processing because the information fails Wikipedia:Verifiabilityowing to the lack of sources. Every time I remove the James Karat reference, someone adds it back in, most recently user Jasperk1975.
If you can block this user and/or protect the page and/or anything else, or tell me what to do, I'd be grateful.
BD - please go see what I've done so far with the Barbara Dawson BLP - the sources are off the charts reliable - the woman is notable. Atsme💬📧 22:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Good work, thanks. BD2412T 04:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
A new article, Geoffrey Norris, if you have a chance to do some mass-linking. This one was a lesser effort of mine, mainly because coverage was rather limited, though I think (?) his importance as a scholar still covers his notability. Aza24 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I will have a look in the morning! BD2412T 04:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is done. I only found about 75 more instances. BD2412T 16:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Lovely, thank you as always. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure! BD2412T 00:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
On 8 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eli N. Evans, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eli N. Evans authored three books about the culture and history of Jews in the American South? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eli N. Evans. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eli N. Evans), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
I was fiddling with a userspace draft a couple months ago, and looking at it again I think it's good to go. Can you merge it over the article, to keep the edit history together? CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. BD2412T 17:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!!--CNMall41 (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I hope you are having a good weekend. I just wanted to remind you that if you restore CSD G13 stale drafts at WP:REFUND, you need to make a minor edit to the page or the draft immediately becomes eligible for deletion again. It's easy to forget to do this edit as it's only required for G13 restoration. Many admins who work at REFUND make use of a script, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper, that takes care of details like this. It can help simplify things if you expect to do more page restorations. I actually think that REFUND is one of the more enjoyable admin tasks out there as there is always the hope that a restored draft can eventually make it into main space and become a new article! Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 01:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: thanks, this is a new area I am taking up, and I was not aware of that rule. BD2412T 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Thor 1 (mcu).jpg
This image looks great. Can we use it as the official image. It's mcu Thor s symbolic look. And he is clearly portrayed. This image has all the features required
So why remove it??
The discussion hasn't been moving forward. That's why I'm putting this here. Sorry to bother you. Lord kai07 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
My talk page is not the page to seek consensus on this. It is up to the community, not to me as an individual. BD2412T 03:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying sir. The page seemed pretty inactive. Hence I suggested it here. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There was a discussion there, and it was quite active. BD2412T 04:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
BD, you're pretty clever with technology--is there a way for me to filter out your edits from Recent changes? I know what you do and I don't need to see it, and right now we're under another mass attack so I'm scouring only for four-digit changes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there some reason for which you are watching lots of old IP talk pages? BD2412T 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread. Not your watchlist. BD2412T 01:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: I just realized that I had somehow unchecked "Minor edit". How about now? BD2412T 01:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Ha, sorry, ran off to get the kids their Jello. I'll see tomorrow, or whenever--thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
No worries. BD2412T 01:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I know I'm heavily non-neutral here but I really don't see a consensus to delete there. Almost none of the delete !voters actually engaged with any of the arguments for keeping, despite being prompted to do so. I see a consensus to delete only if noses are counted, so please reconsider. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Wait, what? There isn't consensus unless the delete !voters engage with your badgering?! Even then, that'ssimplynottrue. There was plenty of discussion about a few different aspects of these redirects, but at the end of the day the vast majority of editors disagree with you. BD2412, thanks for stepping up and helping out at RfD. It's always nice to see an old familiar face coming back around. I know closing discussions is an often thankless task that often goes unrewarded (here is Exhibit A), but that doesn't mean it's not appreciated. --Tavix(talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not about agreeing with me, it's about engaging with the arguments and refuting them which (as was pointed out) almost nobody even attempted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
...which is false, as I pointed out with diffs. --Tavix(talk) 15:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: The discussion was largely an exercise in people talking past each other on both sides. However, editors having expressed their opinion are not then required to further engage with arguments with which they disagree. BD2412T 18:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
In which case the only possible conclusion is no consensus, not consensus for deletion of all the redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The small number of editors who agreed with your assessment clearly indicates that your pageview argument is unpersuasive to the majority of the community. Consensus is very clear at this point, and has only been solidified by the outcome of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, AWB broke the hatnotes because it doesn't know about {{hatnote group}}. There is a Phab ticket open on this, but with no one working on AWB I don't know when it will be fixed. We have to watch out for this. MB 16:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@MB: is {{hatnote group}} a new thing? I've never seen that before. BD2412T 17:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not new, but it is little used. I think putting hatnotes together in a paragraph sensibly condenses them to save valuable real estate in a prime location. Others think individual hatnotes need to start on their own line for clarify. There is no consensus for widespread use. There was a discussion recently on a dab TP that fizzed out. It would probably need an RFC to make this a standard. MB 18:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There have been two discussions about the template, in July at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Multiple hatnotes which didn't come to any conclusion, and Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 6#Combining hatnotes onto a single line from 2016 which found consensus preferred separate lines for each hatnote, certainly when there are only 2 (this gets weaker the more lines there are). It's use appears to have expanded somewhat since July though when someone commented there were only 46 transclusions, whereas there are now 126. Personally, I think one hatnote per line is generally clearer and thus more helpful to readers, but I'm not going to say there are never any exceptions. Given the last consensus was several years ago and wasn't particularly well attended it is probably worthwhile seeing whether it still holds. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you should be commended for having the patience and time to go through every U.S. Senator's last name and adding disambiguation/category pages for each of them. Thank you so much! That Coptic Guy 03:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks! Actually, they also cover other countries that have senators. BD2412T 16:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I have replied in the discussion. BD2412T 06:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
What if you hit 2,000,000 edits, and no one even stopped by to say "hey, keep up the good work"?edit
Well, anyway, I'll be on a Wikibreak for a while. Maybe a few days, maybe weeks, maybe months. Who knows. Cheers! BD2412T 06:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at some old edits and realized that you and I often vigorously disagreed on Al Gore III AfDs more than a million edits ago. I had forgotten our disagreement and now I find you one of the pillars of the pedia. You are trusted and I am grateful for your trust. BusterD (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It looks like I missed the clock ticking past 2 million edits about 5,000 edits ago. Well, belated congratulations, you productive beast! LizRead!Talk! 05:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: Thanks, especially coming from you. Cheers! BD2412T 06:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
This site is indeed love and real. There are other sites in the same industry here. Can you please reconsider the speedy Deletion of Epic Gamers Hub or at least can I have the article back in my sandbox
Thanks FabreonJ (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@FabreonJ: I have restored this to User:FabreonJ/Epic Gamers Hub. Please do not restore to mainspace until the article has multiple independent reliable sources. BD2412T 18:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks FabreonJ (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I have created an article for the above individual, completely oblivious until the final seconds of posting it to the mainframe, that there was an ongoing draft article for her. My apologises if I have trodden on any toes - purely accidental. Two thoughts - firstly, obviously anyone is welcome to add to the article I have created from information in the draft; secondly, I am slightly puzzled as to why a draft article has remained as such for years, and so many editors have added to it, without it ever 'going live'. Anyhow, we are where we are. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Derek R Bullamore: Thanks, I have merged the edit histories. There is substantial content from the draft version that can be brought into the current version. BD2412T 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Why did you delete Gender-related violence (disambiguation) without any discussion? Set index pages perform a "disambiguation like function" and are explicitly excluded from speedy deletion criterion G14 because many editors, including me, believe that such redirects hold value. I ask that you restore it, taking it to RfD if you still think it should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Very well. Restored. I will likely nominate the redirect for discussion tonight or tomorrow. I'll think on it for a while first. BD2412T 16:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you marked Mark Wiens as in progress. I was perplexed because several years ago, a reviewer had written that "the current sourcing has three good sources in it that seem to meet GNG." However it has since failed several reviews. I added a few new references to it, so it would be great to get a new review, but it looks like there's a bit of a backlog at the moment. Mark Wiens does seem to barely meet notability and we have articles for less-notable individuals. I've no connection to him other than a desire to eat the food in his videos. Andre🚐 19:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The in progress note is not a comentary on the quality of the draft, but merely a note that someone is working on it. BD2412T 19:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering about this as well as some of the drafts you tagged were going to become G13s later today. But if some editor is actually going to be working on the draft and improving it, that's what counts. LizRead!Talk! 20:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The motivating factor is that these are all drafts being worked on by the editor who is our most frequent customer at WP:RFU, which I decided to give a six-month break from everything they are working on. BD2412T 20:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Another admin who works with expiring drafts also postpones deleting their drafts when they are due to expire. I have a different stance, I think they have so many unfinished drafts that they lose track of them and these CSD deletions remind them that they are out there, needing some polishing up and submission to AFC. I know it's a hassle coming to WP:REFUND to ask for restoration but without these reminders, I think another 6 months will go by without them remembering that these drafts still exist. That's my take on the situation. Thank you for your work at REFUND, BD2412. LizRead!Talk! 21:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I hope you are having a good weekend. I was surprised to see this article moved to Draft space as we are generally only moving recently created articles to Draft space, unless Draftify is the consensus decision at an AFD, and this article is over 12 years old. Are there other pertinent factors for this move that I'm missing? Thanks! LizRead!Talk! 23:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: This is a refund from soft deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Saez). I am not comfortable with fully restoring a deleted article to mainspace, and prefer to interpolate AFC review. BD2412T 23:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I restored that reference I deleted (it is a good book and he does have expertise in the field although it's hard to find much information about him). However, you might have noticed that in that diff from 2009, where the citation is added, the sentence it is added to is not the same as the one I removed it from. Someone has rewritten the sentence to completely change its meaning, but left the 3 sources there, even though none of them support the new sentence. I have therefore rewritten the paragraph and separated the three references so that they relate more comprehensibly to the article text. Please let me know if you think there is a problem with how I have done it and change it if you wish. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Harold the Sheep: yes, I think that's fine. I might tweak the reference template a bit. BD2412T 06:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This is a very poorly written bio that I just made a few minor and useful edits to. I'm assuming your reversion was automated and that you didn't review what you actually reverted to. Of course, if there was something substantively worth reverting, feel free to do that. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Keystone18 (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your edits because they introduced unsupported and nonsensical language. The subject was not by any evidence we have a lawyer in Pennsylvania, period. He did not move at an early age from Pennsylvania to "the Supreme Court of Mississippi", he moved to the territory of Mississippi. BD2412T 03:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Nothing in my edit states that he was an attorney in Pennsylvania. I assume you are referencing the category, which is appropriate in a state by occupation set. What is "the Supreme Court of Mississippi" quoting? Why the quotes? If it's a fact, just state it. If it's in question it should be attributed to whatever it is citing. Keystone18 (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
"came early to Mississippi". What is this quoting? Why is it in quotes at all? Is there doubt about it? Who is C.J.? It's a very poorly written article filled with format issues. Keystone18 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You specifically edited the text to read "Taylor was born in Pennsylvania and relocated to the Supreme Court of Mississippi". That removes quoted context (that he "came early to Mississippi", a representation from the cited source which we should not mess with), and is incorrect. He did not relocate "to the Supreme Court of Mississippi"; that court didn't even exist when he moved to the Territory of Mississippi. BD2412T 03:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that should have been Mississippi, not Supreme Court of Mississippi. Thanks for catching that. Beyond that, however, certainly we can improve this from its current state, right? The only reason to keep the quotes is if the facts are in question--and, in that case, the book source should be referenced so it's clear what's being quoted. And if it's unclear if it's a fact, there's no need for quotes at all. And the sentence: "One source states..." If that quote about him is to remain, the source for it should be named, not left so vague. Hope you see my points. Happy to work with you on it a bit if you have interest. I'm sure we could improve it. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Some statements are best left in the voice of the source, which is provided in the footnote. BD2412T 04:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. I was proposing leaving it in quotes and just adding what we're quoting. Formatted like that, it would read something like: Taylor "retired from the bench in 1820", the legal magazine The Green Bag reported in 1899. Horace Williams Fuller wrote that Taylor "was a lawyer of ability, and was held in high esteem as a judge".[1] Something like that. But I'm leaving it in your good hands. Just noticed you started the article. Thanks for your effort on it. In fairness, I know nothing about it and was just at work on Pennsylvania occupational categories. Have a great night! Keystone18 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I have found a more comprehensive source, which presents a few discrepencies but ties up most of the open questions. With a little additional research, I have resolved those discrepancies as well. BD2412T 05:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Reading Wikipedia on a mobile phone is always a bit iffy, but you might like to know that on my phone your user page appears as two bouncing globes separated by a small window in which just one line of the content can be read! PamD 05:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
On my phone the globes are quite small relative to the screen. BD2412T 05:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I can see different versions on my phone: in one, the globes are small and rest of text is visible, but following other links leads me to the unusable version. I find that editing on mobile is an unpredictable experience, especially when trying to look at talk pages or User pages. PamD 06:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Is the message "
Note to administrators (not visible to others): I have just learned that it is possible to leave a note that is only visible to administrators." itself supposed to be only visible to Administrator's? I'm not an administrator but found it when I followed a link on your talk page, from my mobile. PamD 05:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I am confident that the note to administrators is generally not visible to non-administrators. BD2412T 06:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your work on disambiguating Australian. Since most (all?) readers will know where Australia is, from now on, please consider changing Australian to Australian (rather than to Australian). The Manual of Style asks that we not link (major) countries. I think that should apply to nationalities and citizenship in the infobox as well. For example, in the Richard Sanders Rogers we now have "Australia" or "Australian" linked four times. Again, the Manual of Style (MOS:REPEATLINK) states "a link should appear only once in an article", although allowing it once in the infobox and once in the body of the article. Happy to read and consider your interpretation of the MOS. Gderrin (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gderrin: As these are currently existing links, I am more comfortable switching one link for another. Removing them altogether is a different decision process. BD2412T 18:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. So would it be acceptable to link America in articles about, for example Asa Gray? And should we also add America after New York in the infobox on his page? I confess to adding Australian to the infobox and article about Richard Sanders Rogers - sins of my youth. Gderrin (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I personally have not habitually added such links, and that was not a judgment call that I am made in addressing the existing links. BD2412T 22:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a remnant from a double-redirect fix. BD2412T 23:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universeedit
Awesome to see that Draft:Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was already underway! Honestly, seeing all the brief scenes compiled together, it doesn't feel like that long of a list! A very hearty lead section based on these sources (and likely more out there) would establish the notability of this scope quite well. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I looked a little more and found these: Bustle, Little White Lies, Adweek (Internet Archive), TheGamer, The Ringer. It also looks like Matthias Stork wrote the article "Assembling the avengers: reframing the superhero movie through Marvel's cinematic universe" (in the book Superhero Synergies) that has a few paragraphs about the post-credits scenes. In the book The Marvel Studios Phenomenon: Inside a Transmedia Universe there is a section called "Hunting Easter Eggs: Post-credits scenes" though I don't know how long it is. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, please feel free to add whatever is useful to the draft. BD2412T 14:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Please have patience with me if I'm using the wrong process, I've never had to question a deletion before.
I believe the deletion of Dallas Express (established 2021) was a mistake. As one reviewer wrote, there is a concern "the legacy of the much more broadly notable and historical Negro newspaper, Dallas Express, is undermined by this fleeting same-named entity."
There are a few sources that may help address the "local press" notability issue, because the concern above ish valid.
The nomination addressed the general unimpressiveness of the non-local sources. The fact that a reviewer described this as a "fleeting" entity is not an endorsement of its encyclopedic notability. BD2412T 02:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
So, more non-local sources are required then? I assume the Bloomberg Law article isn't a notable enough national outlet? Or the Texas Civil Rights League as a regional source? Correctlee (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Due to their disproportionaly promotional nature, commercial entities are held to a substantially higher standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is generally unlikely that a typical entity of this kind formed within the last decade would have sufficient coverage to be included in the encyclopedia. Purely regional coverage does not count at all towards this, as non-notable regional entities can be expected to generate regional converage. The Bloomberg article is one article, basically covering one event. We would need multiple articles from sources at this level, each independently providing in-depth coverage, and providing coverage encompassing multiple events. BD2412T 12:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Understood!
In the meantime, is there no remedy for the concern that all Google Searches of Dallas Express" now show a Wikipedia page that is not associated with the currently operating site? The value of a separate Wikipedia article is that it immediately provided useful and important context to readers. Without that, the Wikipedia about historical reputation of an important but defunct Black paper could give causal searchers/readers that they are related publications. Perhaps the existing article needs some notation on this as a new section but also in the summary level so that it immediately shows up in search
If that were a concern at all, then any new entity could justify getting itself a Wikipedia article, or a mention in an existing article, by naming itself after a previously existing one. We don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a promotional platform in that manner. BD2412T 13:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, that was the main concern that drove the creation of the 2021 wiki. The critical context about the new Dallas Express arguably has an anti-promotional effect.
There are a handful of national and regional level articles that reference a relevant lawsuit that further bolsters the context in the deleted article.
Any editor could have commented to that effect during the deletion discussion, which was straightforward, and correctly decided. People can be very inventive when coming up with reasons to wedge non-notable content into the encyclopedia, as you are seeking to do now. Have you previously been involved with promoting inclusion of this content, under a different username? BD2412T 14:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I have not contributed to this discussion or the article under any other username. My interest is not in promoting the Dallas Express, but rather, ensuring that readers have the critical context about the website, context which has an anti-promotional effect. The Dallas Express is a partisan website masquerading as non-partisan news while tarnishing the legacy of a legitimate Black newspaper. I understand what you've said and won't raise this issue here any further. Thanks. Correctlee (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand your position, but at the end of the day it is still an effort to include a non-notable subject for purposes of making a point about it. BD2412T 17:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Re this edit, I don't think Gallagher is a correct attribution, unless I'm mistaken the chapter is written by a guy called Scott Lowe. I'm also not sure it requires attribution. Adi Da's past life relationship to Vivekananda is openly discussed in Adidam literature. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This is one of those odd sort of layers-of-hearsay characterization claims that I feel does benefit from author attribution. If the chapter is by Lowe then the citation should be to Lowe, and the reference tag needs to be refined accordingly. If there are multiple sources available for the claim, reference those. BD2412T 22:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Also just wondering: is there a problem with using books written by devotees as references? Not specifically referring to this case, just in general. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's a problem. If there were extraordinary claims, we might want to cite to the identity of the claimant. BD2412T 22:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Stephen Strange (Marvel Cinematic Universe) fictional characters who have made Pacts with devils categoryedit
Hi, regarding my addition of Category:Fictional characters who have made pacts with devils to the Stephen Strange (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article, the category description states that it is for "fictional characters who have mad pacts with demons, devils, or other assorted fiendish entities of similar nature." And this would clearly include Dormammu. Therefore, while Dormammu is not explicitly described as a Devil in the MCU, I still believe the category was an appropriate addition, so would it be alright for me to re-insert it? Thanks. The Editor 155 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I still think that stretches the definition too far, and is beyond the intent of the category. I would suggest seeking consensus in a discussion involving more than just you and I. BD2412T 01:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey there BD2412, I was hoping you could help me out on this one. A few hours ago, Erica brigade changed File:John Wick - Chapter 4 promotional.poster.jpg from the film's poster to a still from the trailer, which I reverted twice since that's not the poster or logo. But then they wrote on their talk page: These edits were not unconstructive and intentional. These edits were made from Brigade Marketing LLC who is handling publicity on behalf of the John Wick: Chapter 4. Lionsgate has instructed us to make sure the image we uploaded in the primary image presented on the Wikipedia page. Please do not change as the previous image is not what Lionsgate would like push forward at this time. Assuming what they're saying is true, they've likely been performing undisclosed paid COI editing on multiple film articles for years. I was going to make a post at WP:COIN, but they've basically already admitted to undisclosed COI editing, so how should I go about this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: I have nominated the image for deletion, as it no longer conforms with the non-free use rationale. I agree that this is a pretty blatant COI assertion, and worth a WP:COIN report. BD2412T 22:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but if my understanding is correct, isn't the whole purpose of WP:COIN to investigate whether someone is a COI editor? If so, they've already admitted to it themselves, so is a report still in order? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Still in order, COIN is more than a place to investigate, it is also for determining how to deal with the problem. Please note in the report that this editor's talk page is lit up like a Christmas tree (perhaps not those exact words) with image file deletion notices relating to films. BD2412T 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for the advice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I drove the road yesterday. It has been extended south of Taouz some 20 km and is still being extended. 196.92.151.38 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I just did a gnoming edit on the page, and have no further interest in the subject. BD2412T 04:14, 16 November 2022 (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.
I didn't see anyone disagreeing with your suggestion to merge these two articles, so I did. I took care of the copy/paste, making the redirect, a little minor copyediting (very minor), and tagging the talk pages of the articles. You won't hurt my feelings if you feel the need to do any tidying up. Cheers! Joyous! | Talk 22:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Well done, thanks. BD2412T 22:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I was doing a Quarry run and found a lot of talk pages leftover from some disambiguation pages you just deleted. They need to be deleted as well. You link to an RFD discussion from August but I don't see these pages listed in that discussion. Were you working from a list that I could use? Or could you clean these up yourself? There is quite a lot and, unfortunately, Quarry doesn't link directly to these pages so it's a lot of cutting and pasting links. But if you did have a list you were working with, that would help a lot. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 21:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This was from a list generated by User:Certes; the previous deletion discussion ecompasses all redirects sharing this common error. I am working on the talk pages now. BD2412T 21:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I took care of the few pages that are not disambiguation talk pages. Many thanks! LizRead!Talk! 21:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to look for talk pages. They can go per G8, of course, assuming no discussion worth preserving. Certes (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Certes: These are now done as well. I didn't see much of anything in the deleted pages with histories. Two were the original location of the dab, which was moved by cut and paste rather than a page move, so I merged those edit histories to their current locations. BD2412T 21:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. @Liz: the list is here and recent discussion here. Certes (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Could I ask that you stop blanking the WHOIS templates and ANONBLOCK notices from user talk pages? Tiderolls 13:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Tide rolls: There is a consensus-based project set up entirely to replace all very old IP templates and other content with {{Blanked IP talk}}. Where an IP address has not been used for several years, there is a presumption that an editor beginning to edit from that address will be unfamiliar with the past history of the address, and will find the various page notices to which they are directed to be detrimental to their user experience. These pages also carry obsolete links to articles and policy pages that cloud searches for relevant linked content from those pages. BD2412T 13:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
If there is no further comment, I will resume this task. Cheers! BD2412T 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it's safe to carry on. Very few individuals will have the same IP they had several years ago. It's possible – perhaps even common – for larger companies, but staff turnover and movement between roles means that even they are unlikely to be used by the same people. Certes (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"not been used for several years..." What is your cutoff point, IOW how many years? Does this apply only to dynamic IPs, or does it also apply to static IPs abused year after year by IP socks of registered editors? We need to be careful to not destroy evidence. Of course, if you're using a fairly long number of years with no edits, that's a non-issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The idea is to start with the longest-untouched talk pages, but I prefer to cut off at five years. Less on a case-by-case basis, but in no event anything that has been touched in the 2020s. BD2412T 23:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The other three are probably good to go at this point: At present, none of them have any existing history that needs to be retained, and their incoming links have been resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think all are resolved at this point. BD2412T 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Adriana Chechik, 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.
Walter Dorsey, 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.
Washington Adams, 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.
