Well, I'm not going to be using it a whole lot for a while. (I've done the odd thing here or there lately, but I have other tasks I plan on tackling for the foreseeable future. Lots of things I've let fall by the wayside over time.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I just wish that you had assisted with this task prior to the point where others felt compelled to carry it out. bd2412T 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you have distinguished the draft from the mainspace article, thanks for that. I realized that I also forgot to notify you of the CSD on this talk page, I'm glad that the draft was still on your watchlist. Have a nice day, —PaleoNeonate - 19:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers! bd2412T 19:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I've made translation of Arad's article from French to English, to which you have made editting contributions.
This article was deleted, and seems to have been hunted for a long time due to notability / promo issues. So I would ask your assistance in help me with living draft Draft:Kobi Arad (and un-salting 'Kobi Arad') in case the following notability info seems reasonable, and all links are alive. -Peter Pattern (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I will have a look, but I have a number of other priorities that I am attending to right now. Perhaps this weekend. Cheers! bd2412T 20:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Dear BD2412: three questions:
1. My name is Michael, Arad's manager, and therefore do not edit his articles. Is it ok if I edit draft through WP:AFC?
2. Does the following notability specifics seem fair as to be incorporated within the draft:
Subject meets notability in following sections:
WP:GNG
Non trivial and objective coverage by reliable sources such as: ynet.com, Jewish Week, All About Jazz (article) and Israel Times.
WP:MUSICBIO (Although single section notability is sufficient, Arad meets notability in 3 different sections):
3. In case the requirements are fulfilled (links are alive, and you find #2 satisfactory), are you going to be willing to assist in living the draft and unsalt 'Kobi Arad' article?
Thanks :=)
The only edit I made to this page was to improve a link. It is outside of my area of expertise, so I do not think I will be of help. I would suggest, however, posting the above materials on the talk page of the draft. bd2412T 21:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
When I read that episode description, I simply assumed it meant Mrs. Foster went to New York state. But, since you changed it to New York City, that must mean Mrs. Foster went specifically to the city of New York, not merely to the state of New York. Thanks for providing the link to the more-specific location. Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Airports (as referenced in this passage) are typically designated by city, not by state. Cheers! bd2412T 10:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Since the show was British, I simply guessed the airport referenced in the passage was one of these. Thanks again! : )allixpeeke (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. From the blurb one would get the impression that the subject was travelling to New York, but from The Way Up to Heaven it appears they were travelling from New York City to Paris. bd2412T 14:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, indeed. And IMDb's description is of no help.
Okay, so I went ahead and watched the episode itself. The episode does not say specifically where the Fosters live, but they're driving to Heathrow Airport, and it takes them an hour to get there. In the car, Mrs. Foster says to her husband that she will write to him "from New York." The next day, she tells the driver she "has a plane to catch for New York."
Even if the plane is dropping Mrs. Foster off at J. F. K. or LaGuardia, the episode gives no indication that Mrs. Foster's daughter lives in New York City. If, for example, the daughter lives in Long Beach, it would make sense for Mrs. Foster to get dropped off at J. F. K. and then drive to Long Beach. Since Mrs. Foster is obviously taking her so-called "holiday" in whatever city her daughter lives, and since the episode does not specify that said daughter lives specifically in the city of New York, I'm no longer comfortable with the link being directed to New York City, and have thus changed it to New York (state).
Does this seem reasonable to you? I mean, even if the daughter does live in the city, it's not incorrect to say Mrs. Foster is taking her "holiday" in New York state; but if the daughter does not live in the city—which might be the case—, then it would be incorrect to say she's taking her "holiday" in New York City. Does this edit seem reasonable?
That is fine. Note that the article, The Way Up to Heaven says "The story is written from a limited omniscient point-of-view and takes place in contemporaneous New York City", which seems entirely inaccurate in light of Heathrow Airport. In the long run, it doesn't matter at all, since this is a one-off work of fiction, and even the authors might not have thought about whether they meant the city or the state. In this case, using the state is accurate enough, since they will be in the state of New York whether they are specifically visiting the city or some other region in the state. bd2412T 14:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, the article for "The Way Up to Heaven" is about the Roald Dahl short story upon which the Ronald Harwood dramatisation "The Way Up to Heaven" is based. They may have changed some elements when bringing the story to the small screen. Without reading said short story, we have no reason to assume the former article is entirely or even slightly inaccurate. allixpeeke (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Expiration date. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Cheers! bd2412T 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, your many edits like this one to insert spaces after commas in text in NRHP infoboxes are all fine. But perhaps it would be good to request that the NRHP infobox generator be fixed, too, because there are 20 to 30,000 more coming on gradually. If you do suggest it, don't mention me, as the programmer doesn't want contact with me. I gave them feedback before which fixed some things in the generator, but there was friction about other stuff too. Some info about the generator is at wp:NRHPhelp. Or, maybe it is not worth while. --doncram 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the easiest solution of all would be to get a bot to make these fixes automatically. I am dubious about the utility of asking others to make changes, but I'll give it a try. bd2412T 16:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to say thanks once again for your ongoing efforts to keep the New York-related wikilinks pointing to the right places while the rest of us are distracted by all the discussions. Certes (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's... quite an image. Cheers! bd2412T 18:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Wiita may be notable, but we require multiple, reliable, arm's length sources to provide evidence of it as described above.
Please see WP:External links/Perennial websites for more information on why social media sites, IMDB, YouTube and/or Find-a-Grave are not generally considered reliable secondary sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Carrie Wiita and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! BD2412,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! joe deckertalk 02:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some kind of mistake here. I have not submitted anything for evaluation. bd2412T 02:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Carrie Wiita. Thanks! joe deckertalk 03:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Carrie Wiita. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted the draft. I don't see anything coming of it at this point. bd2412T 19:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Expiration date. Thanks! » Shadowowl | talk 19:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
User:佳峰 is beginning to annoy me. Talk page blanker, ignores requests to fix links which they have made to DAB pages - see 2017 NBA Summer League and the history of that page and that user. The recent timeline:
20:21. I posted a plea on 佳峰's talk page asking them to check their links, with what I hoped might be useful advice and a link to the relevant DABlinks report. (I wasn't the first to do so - see this edit.)
22:03 佳峰 blanks their talk page.
22:07 佳峰 posts another bad link in 2017 NBA Summer League without fixing any of the existing ones. (It was a duplicate of an existing link to a DAB page - but somehow the number of links to DAB pages has crept up from eight earlier today to ten now.)
I could be in a slightly bad mood because that wretched Japanese rivers template scuppered my goal of getting WP:TDD Table 3 Column 3 down below 300 today; but this finding was an additional aggravation. This could be a case where a ton of bricks might be appropriate, despite WP:BRICKS. Narky Blert (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
If the conduct continues, I would just revert new edits adding disambiguation links, with a note informing the editor of the revert. bd2412T 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
TY for the advice. I've fixed the existing bad links to 2017 NBA Summer League out of the goodness of my heart. If the behaviour continues, I'll try some Pavlovian conditioning. I've looked at a few of the DPL nastygrams user has received, and have seen no case where user did anything about one. WP:UNCONSTRUCTIVE could be a good reason tag. Narky Blert (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Expiration date. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for this unintentional edit which JFG rightly reverted. I occasionally have some strange page loading problems and I can only assume that it was during one of these that I clicked on the wrong button on a page. Andrewa (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
"Although ideally subtopics should be titled consistently with their supertopics," where do you get that idea? There are many examples in the MOS that states consistency within articles is desirable, but does not suggest that consistency between articles is. WP:CITE supports consistency within articles not across them; and WP:AT explicitly states "Do not create subsidiary articles: Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another" (Article title format). -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
In fact in the case of Zurich the majority of English language reliable sources user "Zurich" not "Zürich" and have done for 100s of years, so it is that page that needs moving. The problem is that just like the battle pages there are lots of people who simply support Zürich without presenting evidence. Such support ought to be discounted when a closer closes an RM. The problem is that most closer it seems simply treat opinions expressed as votes. -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
"Desirable", therefore ideal. Numerous precedents are gathered at WP:TITLECON, specifically at WP:CONPRIME and WP:CONSUB. bd2412T 14:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
That is an essay written by you and much of it is not based on policy. -- PBS (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Virtually the entirety of it is drawn from community consensus in previous move discussions and policy discussions on titles - those are the precedents to which I refer. bd2412T 13:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dash, Alexander. Since you had some involvement with the Dash, Alexander redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Davey2010Talk 17:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, thanks for closing this: [1]. I was expecting my WP:COMMONNAME argument to hold a bit more weight though - did you check the sources? Although the Khaltmaagiin is not unknown in the literature, as far as I can see, the vast majority of English sources, including the usual high reputation bellweathers such as the BBC, Financial Times and NY Times etc. use the shorter form that I recommended. The only counterargument to that was that they are "ignorant journalists"... Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Generally, if there is a weight of consensus in favor of a title that is permissible under our policies, that is the consensus that governs the outcome of the discussion. bd2412T 00:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not how I would see it. Now the article, on an important national head of state, is stuck at a somewhat obscure name that is not used by the majority of English reputable sources. I don't think that's the best outcome for the encyclopedia, just because three people in an RM discussion reckoned that a local guideline should be taken over and above WP:COMMONNAME. Since you're an admin I respect I will let this one go, but I'm not convinced this is the best result we could have had. — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I merely closed a discussion in accordance with the consensus apparent in that discussion. It is up to participants in the discussion to persuade other participants of the best outcome. bd2412T 12:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. WP:RMCI says: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." So clearly there's a bit more to closing than just seeing who "won" the debate in the RM discussion. Perhaps you were persuaded of the validity of their arguments too, in which case that's fine, I have no objection to that. But if you were not persuaded of the arguments, then (personally anyway) I usually find it better to do a "oppose" of my own rather than just close with a vote count. Anyway, it's no biggy really, maybe I'll keep this on my watchlist and see if the situation is clear in reliable sources in a few months, and seek to move it to the other title then. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The questions at hand are whether the proposed title is permissible under our policies, and whether there is a consensus in favor of that proposed title. The title proposed was not devoid of sources supporting it, so the preference is indeed up to the community. I was not "persuaded" either way; I merely closed the discussion in accordance with the opinions expressed by the participants. bd2412T 12:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
OK then, thanks for your response. — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Doc. I am currently engaged in a project on Wikipedia to fix small but unsightly punctuation errors - mostly spacing issues around commas.
What we are supposed to have is:
Jones, Johnson, and Smith formed Smithco, Inc., in Provo, Utah.
Instead, we often see spacing errors like:
Jones,Johnson, and Smith formed Smithco,Inc., in Provo,Utah.
or:
Jones, Johnson ,and Smith formed Smithco ,Inc., in Provo ,Utah.
or even:
Jones , Johnson , and Smith formed Smithco , Inc. , in Provo , Utah.
There are literally tens of thousands of these to fix, and the most efficient way I have found to do this is to load large groups of articles through AWB (I generate batches of 150,000) and use a script to fix any pages in those groups that return such errors. Unfortunately, due to the structure of our coding, text in ref tags is not distinguished from text in the body of an article. In order to avoid leaving false positives, the easiest thing to do is to just every instance of the sort of punctuation errors that need to be fixed when found in an article. Otherwise, editors carrying out the same task in the future will continually come across the same apparent errors, and will waste hundreds of edit's worth of time checking and dismissing them. Cheers! bd2412T 11:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
As a repairer of broken names I've had to deal with AWB edits that change a ref name in just the section of an article that is being fixed for other reasons. I understand that AWB is efficient, but it is also a very fast way of introducing errors since operators seem to feel that checking for introduced errors is not needed. I would love a way to ensure that AWB could stay our of reference names, but without that your approach of examining the entire article rather than just a section will avoid problems. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It does no harm at all to change ref names, so long as all of them are changed consistently throughout the page. I don't see why anyone would think it necessary in the first place to create a ref name with text that would scan as a common grammatical error. bd2412T 14:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The revision number of 791151823 and 791152045 does not support the encryption. See[3] and [4]. This note cannot be done through my error in mind. Otherwise, I don't edit any Boeing Business Jet article with Kingsford Smith Airport and User:MilborneOne. Cheers! kaplanalT 20:52, 18 July 2017 (Novosibirsk time)
It looks fine now. I made the 605 link a section redirect, to take it directly to the target information. Cheers! bd2412T 13:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, BD2412, very much for saying that my efforts to improve and expand the article Elijah Daniel successfully demonstrate that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DIFF.
Especially during this trying period of time, I really appreciate your being so willing and kind to acknowledge the hours upon hours of research and writing that I've recently put into this.
My friend, I know the feeling well. Cheers! bd2412T 00:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, in that case, you know how I feel right now, and I'm not sure what else to do here. I hope the article will not get deleted. I hope my research efforts and hours upon hours of research on sources will not be for nothing. Sagecandor (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
avoid adding unnecessary editing on the pages like what you did on the Diadem part, it only distorted the image made it not visible thank you! (Jasper0070 (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC))
Sorry, that was a typo due to a false positive. bd2412T 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
My watchlist is filling up with your username. I have several concerns.
One is that you're not being careful with your edits. This diff, which I stress is not unusual, has a wrong edit summary and is utterly pointless in any case, correcting links in a user talk page that has been archived for six years.
I also suspect, though I'd need to refresh my memory, that bot-like editing from a user account is prohibited by policy.
In any case, bad bot-like editing from a user account is disruptive. Please stop it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The edit summary is exactly correct. COI is a disambiguation page, one that had literally hundreds of incoming links clearly intended for the Wikipedia policy page WP:COI. Correcting these errors, no matter how old they are, is not pointless. It cleans up the "What links here" page so disambiguators can actually see everything linking to the disambiguation page. Disambiguation is a vital task to building a useful encyclopedia, which, last I checked, is not intended to be a permanent repository of talk page errors. bd2412T 16:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
if "bot-like editing from a user account" were really prohibited, then the whole of WP:AWB would have to be closed down. Whereas in fact, this sort of WP:WikiGnome editing is vital for keeping the encyclopedia well organised — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Cheers!Thank you for creation of and work on Draft:Battlefield, soon to be Battlefield. It is a fine article that needed writing. — AjaxSmack 22:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - it was quite a battle to get it done! :-) bd2412T 23:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You know that tagging a page with {{cleanup}} without specifying a |reason= is a no-no, right? I don't like spinning my wheels fixing pseudo-problems, as it detracts from my time fixing obvious and real problems, which there are already many more than I can keep up with. You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template. wbm1058 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I did not know that - you learn something new every day. The pages I have been adding it to have basic capitalization, spacing, and punctuation issues. bd2412T 19:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You'll know this one - it's been around with 69 links on Disambiguation pages with links since I first got interested in WP:DPL. The phantom links also get reported on pages like Articles With Multiple Dablinks (just about everything with "Rangers" or "Scotland" in the title). I think I've been tricked into opening every one of those links at least once. Would this experiment be worth trying? delete Richard Gough (footballer) until User:DPL bot has forgotten about it, then recreate it as a fresh {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} page. I see that other editors have tried adding {{bots}}|deny=DPL bot with no effect at all (except, perhaps, to confuse DPL bot still further). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. I have tried that before with similar issues, to mixed results. I have indicated that the redirect will be restored on September 2, 2017. I have created Richard Gough (association footballer) as a redirect to the disambiguation page, so when that date rolls around, I will move that redirect to Richard Gough (footballer). bd2412T 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for touching up my sloppy work on Flula Borg. I'm normally super careful about getting the wikilinks right but I was kind of distracted and got uncharacteristically, embarrassingly lazy this time. I feel bad that someone had to fix what I messed up, but I'm thankful that you were around to catch it. Great work! -- edi(talk) 18:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
My pleasure. Cheers! bd2412T 18:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you know of this report? Several of the links at the top of the User:DPL bot bit look very familiar indeed from a WP:DPL POV. Could {{bots}} be messing up DPL bot reports? Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Having looked a little further, I'm beginning to think that {{bots}} is a Horror, whose only purpose is to try to disguise mistakes. Deny User:Citation bot and User:BracketBot - really? This could be a case for WP:TFD. Narky Blert (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Mike Mansfield Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Montana
Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at Mike Mansfield Federal Building and United States Courthouse, and perhaps improve its referencing? It was created by you in 2009, apparently using GSA public domain text, but your original link to actual source was either lost or perhaps accidentally never put in. It's still probably easier for you to fix than for me, but I would also be glad to help. It happens I have been fixing up Montana NRHP articles recently. Either way, I'm glad you created that and other courthouse articles back then. --doncram 20:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll have a look. bd2412T 20:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The information regarding the career and early life of pioneer of desi hip hop genre Bohemia is totally messed up in edit section.Please,correct it if u have time.Thank u. Rupantar Hazarika 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupantar Hazarika (talk • contribs)
Sorry, that is outside my area of expertise. You might want to explain on the talk page what changes you think should be made to the article, and what sources support those changes. bd2412T 17:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
almost most of the infos are there.If u click the edit,But does not appear in article.You just have to make it appear in the article.Thank u Rupantar Hazarika 17:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupantar Hazarika (talk • contribs)
You are welcome to make the edit yourself. bd2412T 17:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
since i am new to Wiki,i don't really know,all the procedures or tricks.So i think,i should request a experienced witer.Sorry for the disturbance.i tried,but could not,So i nedded help.Ok no worries. Rupantar Hazarika 17:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupantar Hazarika (talk • contribs)
As I said, this is outside my area of expertise. bd2412T 17:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I've just seen your decision on the proposal to remove the 'persecution by atheists' category, and I'm more than a bit taken aback. Not only have you totally gone against clear consensus (and what does "There is a clear majority in favor of deleting this category, but not a clear consensus to delete" even mean?), but closed with a suggestion (made in a 'salvaging' suggestion by those with no reference-able argument in support of the category-claim) to even re-populate the already-empty category (that was created and populated by one person)? I'm more than tempted to appeal this, as your move against consensus is quite clear, but I wanted to check with you, first. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓ 15:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
A clear majority (more than 50% numerically) does not equal a clear consensus - see Wikipedia:Consensus. This was a drawn out discussion, and consequently a difficult close. I knew it would be difficult for any admin to close, which is why I closed it. bd2412T 15:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
So what was your interpretation of consensus based upon? A 'difficult' close wouldn't result in a 're-populate' decision (and that conclusion can only with difficulty be found and extracted from the, yes, very long discussion... reading that would be 'difficult' indeed, but difficulty of decision this is not). THEPROMENADER✎✓ 16:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not repopulate the category, however. I effectively created a new category that was appropriate to create in light of the discussion, and minimally populated that category. bd2412T 16:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not say in any way that you re-populated it yourself. However, your -decision- was 're-populate', but your judgement that it is 'appropriate' to do this is based on what? You make no demonstrable justification for this in your closing summary. THEPROMENADER✎✓ 16:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Since there was an absence of a clear consensus to delete the category, would you have preferred that it be kept as it was? That is the alternative. bd2412T 18:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, you have not demonstrated here or on the deletion nominatation page on what grounds you 'interpreted' that 'lack of consensus' (and found re-population 'appropriate'); I'm sorry, but 'because I say so' is not a demonstrable rationale. Consensus is not the only thing you should be taking into consideration, by the way: a category is a claim without reference, yet it should be reference-able... this was the entire point of the deletion nomination. It's a long read, granted, but there's ample material in that discussion to come to a conclusion about that (that I would let you do yourself). But by this precedent, even in spite of a majority speaking out against it and presenting a demonstrable case about its lackings, anyone can make any claim they want and it will stick if the 'noise' (purposely?) generated about it is 'too long to read'. I'm not sure what to do at this point. THEPROMENADER✎✓ 22:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
There were 14 !votes for straight deletion (including the nominator), and 12 !votes to keep. There was one additional vote to delete if other "persecution by" categories were deleted, a contingency that has not occurred. Since consensus is usually interpreted to require around 2/3 of participants to support a particular outcome, that would require something more like 24 !votes to delete to overcome the weight of editors arguing that the category should be kept. However, seven of the keep !votes also either proposed moving to the more restrictive category name or expressed that they found that to be acceptable, as did one additional supporter of deletion. Therefore, there were 22 !votes supporting the proposition that there should not be a category at the title under consideration, which is reasonably sufficient consensus to enact a solution that brings about this result. bd2412T 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
In spite of your 'therefore', that's pretty convoluted: one does not extract a suggestion of the minorty (who only made it because they knew the category as it was had no leg to stand on; this was never addressed anywhere by you, even after my repeated questioning) voting 'keep' and conflate that with opposing votes not even suggesting any such move, because, again, the tally you make is those against the category as it was, not for any name-change or repopulation, that conclusion remains an -alternative- minority will... and yours.
Because it is your jugement I'm calling into question here, not the outcome: even if the 'delete' motion went through and the category deleted, whoever promoting whatever agenda could just go ahead and create an alternative 'replacement' category. That's bad enough as it is, but let those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox for whatever have their actions stand to the test of factuality without wikipedia administrators helping them to bypass or delay it. Whether through laziness (that may be over-burdened-ness), ignorance or willful abetting, I see this happening all to often on Wikipedia, and it must stop.
Let's let the events following this decide what I will do, but thanks to your 'authorisation', the outcome is all too predictable, so I will no doubt be appealing. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓ 08:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to appeal any decision that you disagree with. I stand by my judgment. Cheers! bd2412T 12:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Persecution by atheists. 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. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I was wondering whether you could fix a few things. Are you able to change all {lang-fa} templates on articles about buildings, people, cities, towns, rivers, provinces, mountains, etc. of Afghanistan, to the correct {lang-prs} template? The official name of the variant of the Persian language spoken in Afghanistan is Dari, and it has its own lang-template. However, due to mere lack of interest, most people have carelessly added the lang-fa template instead of the lang-prs template. All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I really am not familiar with these templates, and am not keen to start messing with them. bd2412T 00:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Do you, by any chance, know someone who's familiar with them? Assuming you communicate with other editors who use bots to make all kinds of fixes, that is. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the place to seek bot-related help is WP:BOTREQ. bd2412T 00:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I think we crossed wires posting on each others' talk pages. None of the drafts on this page will go thirteen months without an edit, since they are all subject to certain regular improvements. bd2412T 21:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The proposed threshold is six months without an edit, so that page would be in danger of deletion under the current proposal. And even articles about clearly notable subjects are deleted with some regularity under the current G13 (currently applicable only to AFC drafts), unfortunately... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.
Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.
I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!
On the one hand, I'd like to say this isn't really a topic I have an interest in. On the other, I seem to have made a lot of edits to articles in this field. bd2412T 00:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
as you did in this edit.
Per WP:UP#OWN, "by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself." -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that it is possible that your work experience includes being a sinking ship - another meaning of "founder" on the disambiguation page - but I thought you might mean that you founded some kind of entity. bd2412T 12:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I had thought an administrator would follow published conventions and not reply to civil requests with snark. It is disappointing to find out that I was mistaken. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
You are correct - I should have replied more civilly, and I apologize. We have a general problem of link load, where disambiguation pages are drowning in so many incoming links from all namespaces that it is hard to get a clear picture of what incoming links need fixing from the reader-facing namespaces. "Founder" is one of the particularly problematic pages in this regard, so I am trying to do what I can to fix obvious cases, for the overall benefit of the encyclopedia. Please feel free to revert my edit to your user page. Thanks. bd2412T 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you started many Iowa Supreme court justice articles back in May of '15. That is fantastic and thank you so much! I just noticed that when the talk page was created, the biography wiki was not included along with the Iowa project. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I had rather hoped that other editors would come along and improve these, and that the improvements would include details like that. bd2412T 16:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you made a draft at this time. Do you intend to offer it into article space? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It is on my long list of WP:DABCONCEPT drafts. I do not intend to propose moving the draft to article space until it has been built into an article, with sources. bd2412T 18:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then will RM the dab page over the song. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2017 (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 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.
This draft seemed interesting and I conducted a quite deeper search.But there was (likely) a serious dearth of non-trivial sources or material to ever kick it to main-space.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and deleted it. The draft was created because the subject's name was errantly included in a list of Connecticut Supreme Court justices. bd2412T 13:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
