I am puzzled by your closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Resort. The connection between Forest Lake Resort and the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest is tenuous: some years before the state purchased the land that formed the state park, it had been owned by the man who also owned the resort. After he died in 1941, they passed to different people. The resort continued to be run by private owners into the 1960s, while the state purchased the land that became the state forest in 1949. I suspect that the resort hotel is now the Our Lady of the Pines Catholic church, but am not sure. It is definitely not in the state forest.
Why not just leave the resort article separate? Or if it is to be merged, merge it into the administrative unit that contains it, Cobb, California. I was thinking of expanding the article a bit after the AfD was closed, although there is not much to add, but am not sure what to do now. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I was also sort of thinking of cleaning up the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest article, which has a fair amount of unsourced, inaccurate or irrelevant material. Now it is even worse! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome to change the merge target and relocate the content to a more appropriate encompassing article. The consensus that the contested subject should not have a separate article remains clear, though. BD2412T 15:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not see that consensus. Uncle G (I think) and I were in favor of keeping the article on the grounds that it passed WP:GNG, Alexandermcnabb wanted to delete it or maybe make it a footnote in Boggs Mountain, and Pontificalibus, who had got mixed up about the sources and thought it was in the state forest, wanted to merge into Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. Surely though a merge discussion is separate from an AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure continuing the discussion on the closer's talk is even polite. It's right to close the location article (you moved it to a resort title, halfway through the AfD, remember User:Aymatth2?) as delete or merge. Merge to Boggs Mountain or Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest I care not - but this location/resort is not notable and doesn't deserve an article. But, as I say, I don't think User:BD2412's talk is the place to continue debating a consensual, clear, close. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I see no explicit statement by UncleG that would contravene a merge of the content. They've been around a long, long time, and know how to !vote Keep where they want their opinion counted that way. BD2412T 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not even sure Cobb, California would be the correct merge target. Google maps, not always accurate, shows Forest Lake Drive as defining part of Cobb's western boundary, and shows Forest Lake mostly to the west of that road, outside Cobb. It gives a marker for Our Lady of the Pines to the east of the road, but a click on the church name gives images of the large building to the west of the road, which may be the old resort hotel. Certainly the correct merge target is not Boggs Mountain or Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, and it is dubious whether it is Cobb, at least as defined by Google. It definitely was in Lake County, California, so I suppose it could be merged there, but that seems a bit lop-sided. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I would think that for a lodging to be notable, we would need to be able to pin down where it was. BD2412T 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Not really. It is discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources, which is all it takes to be notable. There is enough detail for a short article. Modern maps show roughly where it was and there will be old maps that show exactly where it was, just not online. We know it was some distance from Boggs mountain and never had anything to do with the state forest. We can see Forest Lake Drive with a large wooden building just west of it, now a church, which may or may not be the old hotel. But that is original research. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The point is that it is part of some larger geographic unit. Merge it there. Offline maps can be used as a source. BD2412T 21:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I am in Costa Rica and have no hope of finding an offline map. I only know for sure it was in Lake County, and that the two "merge" votes made no sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to start cleaning up the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest article, basically removing, flagging or sourcing unsourced material, trimming out historical content that is better covered in Boggs Mountain, and expanding on the creation and history of the forest, including recovery from the Valley Fire. I feel handicapped because the article contains this big lump of material on Forest Lake Resort, which has absolutely nothing to do with the state forest.
Would you care to back out the merge of the Forest Lake Resort material and launch the formal process to merge it into Lake County, California? If not, would you object if I did? I still think the subject is notable and has enough material for a stand-alone article, but I suppose if the title redirects to a section in Lake County, California, all that is lost is the location map – and even that could be added. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have already suggested that you move the content to a more appropriate article if you feel there is one. Therefore, of course I would not object to your doing so. BD2412T 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Since you boldly merged the resort article into Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, which has nothing to do with the resort, I was hoping you would boldly merge it somewhere else. Lake County, California would be a better target since the resort was actually in Lake County. I was more thinking of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, since adding four paragraphs on a defunct resort to the county article may be controversial. I will stay clear of that discussion.
A much better target would be Resorts of Lake County, California, which could discuss in general the evolution from curative mineral springs to family vacation spots to religious retreats, list the resorts and give short descriptions for those that do not have articles. But I am not volunteering to start it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:BOLD has a very specific meaning within the context of the project. I did not "boldly" merge anything; I merged content pursuant to a discussion. I have no intention of revisiting the matter. BD2412T 17:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
But the discussion pointed out that the resort had nothing to do with the forest.:
"The main source, Hoberg, was published by Arcadia Publishing, not the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and does not mention the state forest. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain and was never part of the state forest."
Surely the merge, if there was to be a merge, should not have been to the state forest. I do not understand the reluctance to correct the mistake. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have said four times in this conversation that you can go ahead and change the merge topic. If you believe the outcome is a mistake, I don't understand your reluctance to correct it. BD2412T 17:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
That merge argument was
"Both the book sources above are published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection who manage the forest, and as such don't quite fulfill the requirement of "multiple, independent sources". Both sources mention the resort only in the context of the history of the current state forest, and there's no reason why we shouldn't do likewise."
If that had been true, it would have been a valid argument, but it was completely incorrect, as was pointed out. If we discard that vote, we get no consensus for a merge. It becomes a debate between two editors over keep vs. delete based on whether the topic has to be important to be notable. I am quite willing to correct the outcome by restoring the article, if you concur, but not to fight to get acceptance for merging into Lake Valley, California. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
If the rationale for merging the content was flawed, we would not "discard that vote", but would count it as a vote to delete, since that editor is still contending that there should not be a separate article on this topic. BD2412T 18:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The editor was contending that the article was about the history of the state forest, using sources published by the state forest, so should be merged into the article on the state forest. And that would be valid if true. But the editor had it all mixed up. It was nothing to do with the state forest. Votes have be considered based on how valid their arguments are, and in this case the argument was completely invalid. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC).
I merely closed the AfD. What you do with it is not my concern. BD2412T 18:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
So you have no problem if I restore the article stand-alone? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem with you merging the content with another article. You should be aware that for an article on the resort itself to exist, it would have to pass WP:NCORP. BD2412T 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:GNG is good enough for this and any article. Surely the "merge to somewhere" decision is discredited, since the argument for that was totally invalid. You are surely not still sticking to that decision? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
There was a consensus in the discussion that this subject does not meet the WP:GNG. If you wish to appeal my close, I'm sure you know the process to do that. BD2412T 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I did not see that consensus at all. Seems to me if you toss out the dud merge vote, it was 2-1 that the article did meet GNG. I rarely get into disputes and have never appealed an AfD before, not sure if I can be bothered. The combo Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest + Forest Lake Resort is sort of cute. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Forest Lake Resort. 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. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello how are you ?
can you delete this article Mohamed Omar (digital media personality)
Because The article does not have any reliable sources and he is a Normal person, doesn't have any notability !
And secondly, he is a friend of Arabic admin in Arabic Wikipedia and he reviewed his page and it was accepted
The user who created the article has also been blocked
Please take a look please
Stay Safe
--Ladyofturkey (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I have added a PROD tag. If this is deprodded, it will need to go to AfD. BD2412T 15:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit that moved the short description out of place. You must not be using the version with the fix for this. MB 21:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I was not aware that there was any newer version of AWB available. Usually, they discontinue the previous version when they initiate a new one. I will upgrade. BD2412T 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not a new released version. But there is a manual download available. It's been discussed on the TP several times. MB 22:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412 Sorry for my edit here [[1]], I am convinced, that it isn't derogatory or racist towards us(the black men) but it is the contrary, thank you. Thank you for having it here at BBC (disambiguation) Appreciate it! :D QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 13:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. BD2412T 05:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Did you ever start a draft to spin-off Bob Dole's 1996 campaign into its own article, as you had suggested we should do? SecretName101 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I did not, but I'm game for it. BD2412T 05:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I found an article on his campaign's efforts to plan for a potential presidential transition. Something to extraneous to put in the main article on the man, but perfectly relevant for a campaign article. So if you start a draft, let me know, and I'll be glad to add that information to it. SecretName101 (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
There's been a WP:GOODFAITH misunderstanding here, could you please maybe clarify the situation and see if the article is mainspace-ready as an MCU-specific article? IronManCap (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Can you remove the PC from Palestinian (disambiguation)? It won't filter anything as long as the 30-500 is there and probably it will never be removed. (CC)Tbhotch™ 03:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Done, but the page should not have been moved without discussion and consensus in the first place. BD2412T 03:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Could you guide me as to whether you'd be interested or know anyone who's interested in supporting this proposed WikiProject or generating some support for it becoming a Taskforce under another WikiProject? As far as I see, very few editors seem to be active in this particular domain. Semanticz0 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I will do what I can, but it's outside my field of knowledge. BD2412T 03:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKS 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.
The vandalism reverted and the discussion is speedily closed. Please be more aware of circumstances like this before making an AfD nomination. BD2412T 03:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello May I request you to review the subject page. Warm regards RV (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It is already done. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks to be off to a good start. BD2412T 04:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Regards RV (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Table of plants used as herbs or spices. 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. Tamtrible (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I have responded there. BD2412T 21:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Just a heads up: I just noticed there were two articles for the same individual/official: There's Brenda Mallory (lawyer) and Brenda Mallory (public official), I believe both were AfC articles. The "lawyer" one looks like it's linked to more articles, but the latter one seems to have more sources, however I haven't verified said sources. I'm assuming one article would be merged and/or deleted over the other, but I wasn't which one to nominate for deletion. I'll let you handle that. Just thought I'd let you know. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Snickers2686:Brenda Mallory (public official) is the older article, even if by a matter of hours. I'd go with that one. The editor who made the second one should have done a more diligent job insuring it wasn't duplicating anything. BD2412T 04:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, if you could copy the article to the draft page, I would make new sources and additions. She is a surgeon, oculista, Doctor of Medicine --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't let you know of this earlier. There has been quite a comprehensive discussion ongoing amongst editors reassessing MCU articles for WP:FANCRUFT and other concerns, with an agreement now to draft-ify a lot of them. As an experienced admin, your opinion on all this would be appreciated. IronManCap (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I am aware of the discussion, and am irked that the individual character pages somehow got dragged into this at all, apparently with no cognizance of their background. BD2412T 16:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I was also a bit puzzled by the criticism of the individual character articles without naming examples, as ones like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are well done. I think they were referring to ones like Drax and James Rhodes, although I don't think we have to rush to draft-ify them as proposed instead of working on them in mainspace per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. IronManCap (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Drax and James Rhodes are fine as they are. They are both thoroughly well-referenced and contain extensive out-of-universe details about the casting, acting approaches, costuming, and receptions of the characters. All of our character articles have those qualities. I wouldn't have let anything into mainspace that didn't. BD2412T 19:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, the only GA that I did from start to finish was Eric Chappelow, for which I recall the main issue was finding OCLC numbers for many of the references. BD2412T 20:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning-up after I closed the discussion and moved the page. I was going to do myself, but you beat me to it. — YoungForever(talk) 05:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I checked my watchlist at just the right moment! BD2412T 06:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If there are lists by region, and Lists of radio presenters is a list of those lists, the only possible difference would be the exclusion of countries with few notable presenters - there can be a discussion on whether presenters from those countries should be included in the main list or excluded entirely because of which country they are from. Also the nomination is not a reason to delete, but a reason to split, so would that be a better outcome? Peter James (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be a better outcome, but it was not the consensus of the discussion. BD2412T 00:57, 2 June 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. — Czello 20:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Czello: I am the wrong person to notify. I only created a redirect at this title. I see that the redirect has been restored. As a draft exists at Draft:Cam Anthony, and given the apparent propensity for shenanigans at this title, I will protect the page. BD2412T 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, that notice was an automated thing from WP:TWINKLE. I restored the redirect as it's easier than going through the speedy deletion. Apologies for the bother! — Czello 21:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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. Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Dayereh—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Wildhorse3 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I have any interest in this article. BD2412T 02:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The fact that this article has been improperly removed from draftspace twice leads me to believe that it is spam, and should not be included in the encyclopedia. BD2412T 21:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I think if we correctly indicate each source on the article page, we can improve it even more. If it is restored i can start working on the draft page.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I do not intend to restore this. Ask the admins who previously deleted or draftified the page: @Jeepday, Praxidicae, and Fastily:? BD2412T 21:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello; I edited my draft for Arsha Aghdasi , which should be linked to the Persian page fa:ارشا اقدسی, and tried to choose reliable resources, can I ask you to re-review it, help me to improve and accept if possible?
thanks
Atena ak2 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I see some disambiguation links, and many headers make no sense. I also see that this has recently been submitted for review, and I will not override the determinations of AFC reviewers here, so please resubmit it through that process. BD2412T 23:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Regarding photos used in the Infobox of biographies of living persons, is it permissible to directly obtain permission from the subject? Say it is a photograph they took themselves, can they then provide written permission? If so, how? Israell (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It is doable with an OTRS ticket, but it inevitably raises eyebrows when an article subject provides their own image, as there are obviously COI concerns associated with such contact. BD2412T 15:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I have not questioned its verifiability, but it is still describing a characteristic of textiles. We don't have a separate article on the toughness of elephant skin separate from the article on elephants. BD2412T 16:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Tis a mktg term, and I will be working to remove the ambiguity, and misleading nonsense, assuming it survives deletion. I have already started proposing improvements to the article. -Roxy .wooF 16:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
A marketing term can itself be notable if there is sufficient coverage of it. I doubt that it is notable independent of the product with which it is used here, but I appear to be in the minority on that. BD2412T 17:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Wellertalk 19:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, could you please move Falcon (comics) to Falcon (character) per WP:NCCDAB? I performed this move myself a while ago, but it was incorrectly reverted by an admin who referenced a move discussion that didn't even mention the new title was about another title. Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, I think the other character title (The Falcon (film character)) is sufficiently disambiguated with The distinguishing it from the Marvel character, and a {{About|the comics character|fictional detective|The Falcon (film character)}} hatnote can be added at the top of the Falcon comics article in any case. IronManCap (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the thing to do in this circumstance is to initiate a new move request, explaining that the alternative proposed was not properly vetted in the previous request. BD2412T 20:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits. I didn't know about that part of the MOS, so I'll try to avoid that in the future. However, I was wondering what the abrreviation fl. stood for? I've never seen it before. Clovermoss(talk) 01:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Flourished, a notation indicating that birth and death dates are unknown, but the subject was active during the noted period. See Floruit. Cheers! BD2412T 01:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
_29.jpg){kind=link}