User:BD2412/Archive 028

Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015-016 017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030-031-032 033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045-046-047-048 049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059-060-061 Your 2010 comment Please see the new merge proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Katrina_and_global_warming Thanks prokaryotes (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC) I replied there, thanks. bd2412 T 20:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC) High school As you may recall, a couple of weeks ago High school briefly became a dab with many incoming links. After a useful discussion at Talk:High school, we now have a High school (North America) article. It seems from a sample of the 13,000 links to High school that 80% are about the American style of school rather than Secondary school in general. If there were fewer incoming links, I'd divert them to more specific targets, then recommend moving the dab page to the High school title again. But that could be disruptive here, as well as a lot of work. Another possibility is to point High school at the American article, as there's a case for it being the primary topic. I could raise an RM but I'm not sure exactly what to propose. Any advice please? Certes (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I would say that 80% being about the American concept is pretty strong evidence of a primary topic. Of course, then we have the "New York" situation all over again, where we need some way to fix the ~2,500 links that intend a different meaning. If we can find obvious patterns enabling such a fix, then I think we can safely move High school (North America) to High school. bd2412 T 20:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Peer review Luang Por Dattajivo Hello BD2412, I noticed that you helped copyedit the article Luang Por Dattajivo with this edit. I'd like you to know that I have submitted this article for peer review and I appreciate your input.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks, but this is not a subject area in which I have any expertise. bd2412 T 21:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC) It is not a GA review, just feedback. I would appreciate an outsider's perspective.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your edits, BD2412.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC) AfC notification: User:Hendy179/sandbox has a new comment I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Hendy179/sandbox. Thanks! Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Minorca/Menorca issues Més per Menorca I think you were wrong in this article. The specific RM discussion called for it to be moved to "Més per Menorca", not to "More for Menorca" as you did. Impru20 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC) That discussion has not been closed yet. I merely implemented the outcome of the larger Minorca/Menorca discussion, which (per WP:TITLECON) requires that all subtopics containing "Minorca" be changed to "Menorca". Cheers! bd2412 T 15:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Yeah, but your moves somehow made the RMCD bot to consider the RM as closed and remove it from the list of RM under current discussion. Note: it also did it with Left of Menorca. Impru20 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC) I have gone ahead and closed those discussions. bd2412 T 16:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC) You're breaking every link to an article that spells it Minorca. Please stop changing article text until you change the article titles. Prioryman (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC) I have been changing article titles as I go. If there's a broken link, please go ahead and change the article title, per WP:CONSUB. bd2412 T 22:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Please discuss... [redacted] I changed back to Minorca in the Stephen Maturin article. I also gave my reasons, but you mindlessly reverted, giving a note that bears no reasonable relevance to my comment and not justified by the link you gave. Dabbler (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I was not aware of your edit - this was merely a machine-assisted tying up of loose ends following a page move. In any case, the RM outcome is the RM outcome, no matter the context. bd2412 T 11:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Please explain how the RM (whatever that acronym means, it is a new one to me) in anyway affects any other page requiring that a place name be changed. When I read the link it only seemed to apply to that one page. And please review edits and comments rather than acting mindlessly following your "machine-assisted" process, otherwise it is a really offensive slap in the face to other editors. You are not a bot, I presume, so please don't behave like one. Dabbler (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I apologize for causing you offense. RM means Wikipedia:Requested moves. In this case, it refers to the fact that "Minorca" has been moved to "Menorca" pursuant to a discussion proposing this move at Talk:Menorca#Requested move 24 July 2017, on the grounds that "Menorca" is the actual common name of the place. "Minorca" was, it appears from the discussion, a short-lived Britishism, one that has been overcome in the English language by broader reference to the location in English media as Menorca. It is common practice when the common name of a topic has been updated to update references to that topic wherever it is named throughout the project. In this case, there are thousands of links to fix, and regrettably, carrying out that volume of work across the project risks stumbling on the preferences that an editor might have (with reasonable argument) for a particular page. bd2412 T 14:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Minorca/Menorca Hi BD2412, so far I have been generally OK with the change in ship-related articles. I personally prefer doing "Minorca" to preserve the language of the time and the records, and to teach a little history. Someone that doesn't know the history of the names might miss records that refer to Minorca by looking for Menorca. I would just request continued sensitivity to the issue of the language at the time when that could be important. (The same issue comes up with respect to, e.g., Île Bourbon/Île Bonaparte/Réunion.) Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I have, for a number of articles, added "Menorca (historically called "Minorca" by the British"), which I think is a good compromise for these situations. bd2412 T 20:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I noticed that and agree that it a solution, albeit a wordy one. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC) I suspect that the Minorca spelling may date back before the British as the late Romans called it Minorica, which could easily have morphed into Minorca in documents and speech. Dabbler (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC) The articles at issue seem to be those involving the 70-odd year period in the 1700s when the British had an interest in the island. bd2412 T 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Elcor, Minnesota Hello, BD2412. I beg to differ with you on your recent edits of the page I have been laboriously working on, Elcor, Minnesota. With regard to your most recent edit, "there is no reason supported by any source in the article to link to the island of Menorca", I do not believe you have read the article thoroughly or in its entirety. This line I copy from paragraph three under the History section: "Don H. Bacon, who joined the Minnesota Iron Company as general manager in 1887 and eventually became its president, was a classical-minded man and ardent traveler who named many mines after Mediterranean islands: Malta, Maiorica, Corsica, Elba and the like." It is entirely relevant. If you prefer to have the name of the Minorca Avenue unlinked, would you prefer that I include it and have it linked in this sentence? Thanks. DrGregMN (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC) The article is now at Menorca, and an effort is underway to update usage throughout the encyclopedia; there is no reason to link to an obsolete name, particularly where this is disruptive to that effort. bd2412 T 21:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Understand that the spelling of the name Minorca (Menorca) has to be interpreted in the historical context in which the spelling was incurred. In this case, 1887, from a classically minded man fluent in Latin (insula minor, or minorca "the smaller one"). Admin or not, in my restraint to rail against persons attempting to re-write history, I again respectfully disagree. In defense of this position, I have re-linked the spelling. You should note that this article is up for GA review, and possible future FA status, so I would appreciate any further comments regarding this status on the article as a whole. DrGregMN (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I don't see why the link can't be piped ([[Menorca|Minorca]]) - it would show up to the reader as "Minorca" without appearing on the list of links to be checked. bd2412 T 11:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Comment about your sandbox pages Hi BD2412! I noticed that you have quite a few of your sandbox pages in the tracking Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word. I think it's the empty {{DEFAULTSORT}} template that is causing the issue. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I'll attend to that. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you! GoingBatty (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Glad to resolve the issue - cheers! bd2412 T 15:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Invitation to Peace Treaty with North Korea : AfD|Please see Dear bd2412 Thank you for your long times of valuable contributions to numerous Wikipedia pages. The meaning of contents on innumerable Wikipedia topics are advantageous and constructive because of your time and efforts. Please refer to this Invitation to AfD and let us know your opinion for this article whether it should be "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view Comment Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I have participated. bd2412 T 22:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Dear bd2412, Thank you for your participation. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Invitation to Admin confidence survey Hello, Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment. The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators. To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form. We really appreciate your input! Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team. For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)  Done, cheers! bd2412 T 18:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC) DYK for Birka female Viking warrior? Hi BD2412, Nice work on the stub article Birka female Viking warrior! With a bit more development, it could make an interesting DYK, especially with the GOT connection mentioned in the local.se article. Let me know if you'd like help expanding it. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC) I wasn't planning on working it up further in the short term. Please feel free to improve it an any way you would like, and to submit it to DYK if it reaches that quality. bd2412 T 18:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Audi A7 h-tron quattro Hi, I accepted this article through AfC process. Later, I realised that the content has been published already 15 months ago under different title Audi A7 sportback h-tron. So please delete Audi A7 h-tron quattro, so that I may create a fresh redirect. Thanks. Hitro talk 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC) You don't need to delete the page to create a redirect. Just replace the existing content with the redirect, and you're good to go. bd2412 T 21:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Ok, then in this case I guess talk page of the article should be deleted along with the redirect at Draft:Audi A7 h-tron quattro. Had I known that article already exists before accepting it then I would have nominated it for deletion under A10 criteria at it's Draft stage. Hitro talk 21:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks a lot. Hitro talk 21:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Quack! Hi BD, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Hopefully I won't get crushed by a giant duck anytime soon. ansh666 20:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Congratulations! I'll keep an eye out for oversized waterfowl for you (or anything else that looks like a WP:DUCK). bd2412 T 20:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Admin help needed You appear to be on line now. There was some personal information posted on Cenk Uygur, a WP:BLP violation. It needs to be removed. I deleted it but it is still in history. I don't know how to or don't have the power to hide such material. Trackinfo (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Draft:Digiday As of today, this article meets the criteria definitely of G11 and likely of G12. The whole thing is a positive quote farm, which is both spammy and a substantial violation of the nonfree content requirements. Please correct it to be neutral in tone and use quotes very sparingly, ensuring that the vast majority of the article is neutrally paraphrased, not quotes. Especially, quotes should be entire sentences, they should not be used to finish sentences. Every time I've seen that done, it's an end run around WP:NPOV, and that's exactly what's done in the draft. Promotional material is not acceptable, nor is overuse of nonfree material. To be quite clear, if that's not fixed very soon, I'll G11 it. It would likely qualify for G12 as well. I would already have done so, but since I think you have the ability to correct it, I'll give you the courtesy of asking you to first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC) I searched diligently for negative material, and found none. It seems odd that we would fail to include a notable entity because it hasn't done anything badly. If you think you can do better (without merely removing existing properly sourced material), you are welcome to try. bd2412 T 21:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Note: I have reduced the proportion of quotes somewhat. I eventually do this with all my drafts, which start out quote-heavy, and are whittled down from there. As both an intellectual property attorney and one of Wikipedia's longest-serving administrators, I can assure you that, since the quotes come from numerous sources and represent a small portion of each source, there is no violation whatsoever of the nonfree content requirement. From an editorial standpoint, there is nothing wrong with finishing sentences with quotes, and of course there is no rule suggesting this. It is a highly common practice, found even in featured articles (e.g. Ramblin' Wreck, with the line: The Ramblin' Wreck was included in the game alongside many other colleges' pre-game traditions to "deliver the pride and pageantry of game day"). In any case, this is a draft, and I have not suggested that it is anywhere near being a finished product. It is premature to treat it as such. bd2412 T 03:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Moving page Publiseer Hello, I created a page Publiseer as a draft and tried moving it into the article space while I was done. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have the right to move a draft into article space because I am relatively new to Wikipedia. As a result, I have reverted the page to its previous draft state. Can you help me move this draft into article space? I noticed that after I moved it into article space, it still had the meta robot tag that says noindex or nofollow that makes it impossible for search engines to crawl the page.--Adamk36 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC) I have posted the appropriate template to request review. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Deletion discussion closures Try User:Evad37/XFDcloser. The script automates much of the process. feminist 01:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Interesting - thanks! bd2412 T 01:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Steve Down Wikipedia Page Help Hello, I have been trying to contact a Wikipedia admin for a few days because I have been tasked by Steve Down to help figure out his Wikipedia page. I noticed you recently edited his page a few days ago. I am new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate your help in getting this figured out following Wikipedia’s guidelines. After spending some time looking into his page, it looks like people may be trying to slander his name in order to possibly harm him or his companies, and I do not feel that is what Wikipedia is meant for. The reasons why I feel this way are due to large portions of his page being heavily weighed on small and very specific events. After doing some research I found Wikipedia’s “five pillars” of fundamental principles. The neutral point of view says to explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. However, the initial summary of his page is mainly focused on minor events, many of which are very recent and are explained with great detail, which is giving undue weight to these events. There are also other sections on his page that are given undue weight, such as the “Investor Dynamics Corporation” section (2.1.5), which is heavily repetitive and over-explained. The majority of this section is directly quoting the entire text of the cited sources, rather than giving a concise summary. Lastly, the section under his picture lists “criminal charge” and “criminal penalty”, but the cited sources don’t state any criminal charges or penalties ever occurred (there are only allegations, and nothing is said about criminal charges nor criminal penalties). After reviewing the edit history, it appears that there has been one editor (Anon1-3483579) over the last few weeks adding this information and creating the undue weight. Viewing this user’s contributions page, I found that for the last three weeks they have been intensely focused on the Steve Down page (having made only one edit to another page). They have also been adding very recent events only a day or two after they occur, and have added them to the initial page summary so this information is immediately and easily visible. For these reasons I believe people are using Wikipedia with the wrong intent, especially with there being ongoing investigations and lawsuits currently underway. In light of this, what are the guidelines as far as possibly getting the page temporarily removed, or is it a possibility to get help correcting the page to fit into Wikipedia’s guidelines? Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. I really appreciate you taking the time to read this and help me get this resolved as quickly as possible. You can email me at [email protected] if you'd rather communicate through email. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon89537 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC) I have moved excessive material from the lede to a more appropriate location in the article, and removed excessive quotes from legal documents. bd2412 T 19:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC) I recently made an edit to the Steve Down page to remove text that wasn't accurate and wasn't backed up by the cited source, but this edit was very quickly undone within a half hour by Anon1-3483579. This user also posted on my talk page a notice about editing with a neutral point of view, though I believe I have remained neutral. If you can, please let me know what the next course of action should be, as I really want to get this article as accurate as possible while following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I really appreciate your help and the edits you've made to the page so far, and thank you for looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon89537 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Hello Anon89537 and BD2412, I believe it would be helpful to add my input on the edits made to the page, as my username is referenced here. I really do appreciate the edits of the both of you. I added a majority of the new content which is currently in the article. I did this, because the article seemed to inadequately describe one side of this biography. Note most of the page's content has previously been removed for violating Wikipedia's rules regarding advertising and promoting oneself. These edits were previously done by the staff of Steve Down. Anyways, I added content in the hopes that anything incorrectly done would be corrected or removed by admins, in perpetuation of the principles of Wikipedia. However, all of the content on the page is currently accurate and cited, including charges and penalties displayed in the bio section, which Anon89537 removed. I believe, if citations are reviewed, all the information is correct and well documented and reported upon. The work done by BD2412 involving reformatting of the overstated content and the misuse of the direct quotations was very helpful, by the way. I sincerely appreciate the work you've done here to correct the mistakes I wrote there. - Comment added by Anon1-3483579 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Quite frankly, I have not researched the article subject to know whether this material is WP:UNDUE. Other editors may engage in such an examination in the future. bd2412 T 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC) MfD nomination of Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018 Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC) I have proposed a reasonable compromise with respect to these. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Grand Duchy of Cracow move Hi, While I appreciate your rationale, I think that your move of this page was mistaken for several reasons. 1. You partially discounted my opinion because I was new, and because In ictu oculi mistakenly believed that I was a sock puppet of a banned user. 2. Several incorrect assertions were made by those who supported the move. Keneckert said that Piotrus is a "native Polish and English speaker", when Piotrus's userpage reveals that he is not a native speaker of English. Nihil novi claimed that Cracow is an "anachronistic medieval hangover", when it is still used for the modern city by many reliable sources, including the Oxford Dictionaries and many academic works published in the last decade. 3. There was widespread conflation of "Krakow" and "Kraków". The first one is widely used in English, and is about even with "Cracow" in academic and reference works. The later is barely used, and a lot of the supporting editors used the prevalence of "Krakow" for the modern city to argue for "Kraków" for the 19th-century Grand Duchy. Best, Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC) You are mistaken as to the first point. I made no mention of In ictu oculi's sockpuppetry charge, and gave that aspect no thought whatsoever in giving your opinion less weight. Your participation in this discussion was the fifth edit made under your account, all within days of its creation. That makes it a very new account. As for the other points, there is no question whatsoever that there is actual use of all the possible names, so none of them were impermissible. If you still disagree with my closure, you can seek review at Wikipedia:Move review. bd2412 T 03:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) I will do that, thank you for your help. Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Hi BD2412 when considering the consistency argument, did you include Free City of Cracow in your thinking? The move has made the Grand Duchy article inconsistent with that, and there was an RM in the other direction there just a few months ago. Personally if I had been closing this RM (and admittedly I'm biased, since I voted "oppose") I don't think I would have seen a consensus to move, given the powerful counterarguments of WP:COMMONNAME and consistency with the above named article. If nothing else, the opening sentence of the article itself now looks really odd - The Grand Duchy of Kraków was created after the incorporation of the Free City of Cracow into Austria on November 16, 1846. Please could you reconsider the close? Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC) My understanding has always been that the most significant consistency is between supertopics and their subtopics. For example, we have Bovine respiratory disease as a formal name, but the supertopic is Cattle, so subtopics are named things like Cattle feeding and Cattle in religion and mythology, not "Bovine feeding" and "Bovines in religion and mythology". bd2412 T 11:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Move review for Grand Duchy of Kraków An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Requesting page protection removal Hello. There has been an AfC request at Draft:Blaakyum, which needs to be moved into the mainspace. I am unable to accept the submission, as the page is protected (you did this on 6/8/16). Could you look at this? Thank you. –Sb2001 talk page 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Done, cheers! bd2412 T 13:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you. Regards, –Sb2001 talk page 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Metal Archives Was Responsible For That Gerne i listen To Them Not heavy metal They are Metalcore Metal Archives Wants To Protect The Gerne Of A Band That Belongs To Metal Archives Url Was on All that remains Please Change Error Gerne Thats Not On Metal Archives Dethsix (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC) This is a discussion that needs to be brought to the article's talk page. bd2412 T 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC) New discussion at Donald Gary Young Hey there, would you mind looking at the last several edits and the new talk page section over at Donald Gary Young and weighing in? I'm pinging you and Jytdog as you were the last two editors discussing the article. A Traintalk 23:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC) I just got back from a trip, and have a stack of things to do, but I will be able to look at this tomorrow afternoon. bd2412 T 12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC) DYK for Birka female Viking warrior On 9 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Birka female Viking warrior, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Birka female Viking warrior has been described as a shield-maiden similar to Brienne of Tarth from Game of Thrones? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Birka female Viking warrior. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Birka female Viking warrior), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks, glad to hear it! bd2412 T 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Tireless Contributor Barnstar All your AWB edits. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Many thanks, Bobherry! bd2412 T 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Closure Concern I wanted to inquire as to the closure of SharkLinux article. I acknowledge your reasoning and it is true my edit history is short and topic specific. I wonder if, regardless of the account history of the keep votes if you considered the arguements put forth or just dismissed them due to the editor who had posted them? The initial nomination resulted due to sources not being found by the nominating editor. Several of the arguements in favour of keep provided a variety of sources that would not have been easily found with an internet search. I even went as far as to scan pages out of multiple magazines for reference. In the interest of protecting a great deal of time invested in my contributions to this article Ive spent many hours over the last week studying the policies surrounding notability and inclusion and fully believe this article should have easily passed requirements especially after the additional sources were indexed for added reference. Marpet98 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) I have refunded the article and moved it to Draft:SharkLinux; I have locked the mainspace title, so that it can not be moved back to mainspace without administrator approval. You can continue to work on it there, and submit it for approval through the usual submission process. Be aware that absent solid, reliable sources demonstrating notability, it will not be accepted, and will eventually be deleted. bd2412 T 23:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC) I appreciate you doing that. A question if I may; what is the proper way to include sources that may contribute to the demonstration of notability but arent a direct source for information in the article? I read about the primary/secondary sources for notability requirements but it was also stated they simply had to exist, not be referenced in the article. I have no concerns about the notability itself - its one of the most notable distributions in production; it has been featured in magazines, online publications - in several cases front page covereage, radio shows, countless Linux focused websites in at least half a dozen languages, the focus of workshops, the inspiration to a spinoff version and at least one high-profile radio review can be downloaded on iTunes. When you also take into account being 3rd highest ranked Linux OS its an easy sell and Im quite surprised notability was even a concern. All that aside, if the information included in the article is taken from 2 out of 100 sources how should I go about referring to the other 98? Marpet98 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Sources always need to be referenced in the article if they are to be of any significance to the question of whether the article is kept or not. bd2412 T 03:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC) This seems to contradict that While it is true that notability can be proved by sources not in the article, you won't get the article moved out of draft without sources included in the article. bd2412 T 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) South Korean presidential election, 2017 Hi, just an FYI in case your using a program or something that needs a tweak your edit to South Korean presidential election, 2017 broke an image and a number of templates. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Templates are supposed to be configured so that ambiguous links can be fixed without breaking the template. Unfortunately, it turns out that we can't always rely on their doing so. bd2412 T 16:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Hijacking a thread Re [1]: sorry, absolutely couldn't resits the temptation of following up on the the uncanny similarity between the two numbers. I did consider starting a new thread immediately following, but that would have exactly mirrored the one above, and I think we would agree that this would have been worse. Thank you for your patience. – Uanfala 21:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC) I am probably a bit testy about it because it has happened a few times recently (by other editors, not you). We'll leave it at that. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Is Paris Burning? Hello I just saw your note on the talk page here; I haven't come across that one before, so I'm a bit thrown. The Request Move bit is clear enough, but are you saying that the incoming links need changing before the move can be requested? And if it gets knocked back they'll all have to be changed back again? The incoming links are a bit unclear at the moment, in any case, as a lot of them are template links; the templates themselves have been changed, but I won't be able to see what's left until they clear, which can take a few days. Swanny18 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, that would be the way to do it. Ideally, have the discussion first and reach a consensus to move/disambiguate (the fact that there is more than one meaning does not by itself demonstrate the absence of a primary topic). Once consensus is achieved, fix the links, and then move the page (or move the page and fix the links basically at the same time by fixing the templates and then making null edits with AWB, which updates the pages without having to wait for the templates to update in them). bd2412 T 00:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Agreeing with bd2412's implicit opinion that before moving a long-established article (without an obvious case for a lack of a primary topic) then an RM is the best way to go. However, before or after moving an article, you're under no obligation to fix any incoming links. Of course, if there are links within navigational templates, it's highly desirable to fix them, and you should definitely review the redirects and make sure that after the move they all go where they're supposed to. It's also always a good idea to at least glance through the incoming links from articles and see 1) if the are uses of the term that are not represented on the dab page; 2) if there are any links that look difficult to disambiguate: you know the subject so you're in the best position to fix them. Of course, you can have a go at fixing them all if you wish to! – Uanfala 01:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC) WP:FIXDABLINKS specifically says to fix the links before moving the page. Emphasis in the original. It has been that way for years. bd2412 T 01:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. But I'm a bit surprised at the strong language there. It definitely isn't in sync with the rather gentler recommendations at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Post-move cleanup and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moves of disambiguation pages to primary topic titles, and I've never seen a move being reverted or challenged because of a failure to fix incoming links. I think that if we came up with such a formal requirement, we'd loose most of the the editors who carry out the already thankless enough tasks of tidying up topic structures. – Uanfala 01:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) For undiscussed page moves, I enforce this quite sternly. bd2412 T 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Hello again: I have taken your (and Uanfala's) advice and lodged a request move for this; it's here, if you wish to comment. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!  Swanny18 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC) A barnstar The Admin's Barnstar for having the intestinal fortitude and patience to assess and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Truedson Demitz, an AfD three times longer than the United States Constitution. A Traintalk 14:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks! bd2412 T 14:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC) International trucks Sir? Could I please get you to re-consider International Trucks for a moment? I am talking at Andrewa's talk page right now. Please? Sammy D III (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC) I am not the person you would need to persuade; a consensus of editors participating in the discussion would need to come to that conclusion. bd2412 T 20:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Sir, I don't think you understand. I just want the discussion not closed until I can finish with Andrewa's talk page. He and I are discussing a consesus right now. Please look at Andrewa's talk page. Just don't close quite yet. I am discussing with an admin, another admin supports. Please!!!Sammy D III (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion is already closed, andwas closed after being open for an extended period. Based on that, I will not reopen the discussion at this point. bd2412 T 21:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Pleeeasse. Pleease check with Andrewa's talk page . PLEASE. I have to go for an hour, at least remember me??? Sammy D III (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion is closed. If you disagree with the closure, Wikipedia:Move Review is this way. Otherwise, in due time, a new discussion can be initiated. bd2412 T 21:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Move review for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks An editor has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. I am trying to get this right. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion continues... You have posted at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#WP:INTDAB. It seems to me that no WP:CONSENSUS has yet been reached. If something like a consensus is reached, perhaps you could invite a previously uninvolved WP:ADMIN to take a look and to close that issue down, one way or another? No hurry, a week or two should be the minimum period for discussing a change to such a major guideline. Narky Blert (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Involved at Donald Gary Young I had been treating your work at Donald Gary Young as admin action to enforce BLP, but by now you are completely involved and I will treat you as any other editor. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC) That's fair - but don't take that as a license to engage in blanket reverts and the like. bd2412 T 18:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC) This is an inappropriate use of your admin rights. Please self-revert. If you do not I will bring this to AN and I do not believe your action will be supported there. Please save us all the drama. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC) I will, but it is entirely appropriate to preserve the current state of the article pending resolution of disputes. I will trust you to propose edits on the talk page rather than implementing changes to the longstanding status quo ante without consensus. bd2412 T 18:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC) That would be a reasonable suggestion if you reverted to the version before your changes. It is unreasonable and inappropriate to use protection to protect your version, and probably even worse to try to extract a promise to preserve your version prior to removing the inappropriate-in-the-first-place protection. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC) The last stable version of this article prior to the current series of discussions would be the one prior to October 8, which existed as such since your last edit on March 27. However, that would entail removing all the New Yorker material, which I don't think is necessary. The current version is basically the version before those edits were made. That is the version that is appropriate to maintain until disputes are resolved. bd2412 T 19:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC) I am almost out of patience here. I am now bringing diffs: You boldly made a bunch of changes. I reverted to the ante, saying that if you feel strongly you should bring an RfC (due to the lack of support for your position at talk) You reverted that and suggested I go bit by bit I started to do that, and actually had edit conflict with you when you removed a source that i was about to move the you protected the article You will not have a leg to stand on at AN. Please remove the protection now. Please consider walking away from this article, as you have lost your judgement here to the point of abusing your tools. You are thoroughly involved, and you at least acknowledged that this was a "fair" statement above. If you do accept that, this means you should accept that you are not in a position any longer to declare what the "appropriate version" as an uninvolved admin might be. Please take a breath and think before replying. I really would rather spare us all the drama. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC) I think you are misunderstanding the situation. The status quo ante period would be the stable period prior to October 8, and that would be the case no matter who was assessing it. I am agreeing with you with respect to most of the content of the article, and am completely open to having a discussion and obtaining consensus as to the areas where we might disagree. bd2412 T 19:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for unprotecting. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC) The article was literally protected for only five minutes; it has been unprotected for pretty much the entire time that you have been asking me to unprotect it. bd2412 T 19:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC) William Littleton Harris Hi-there is a draft for William L. Harris (judge); that needs to be merged in an existing article about William Littleton Harris who served on the Mississippi Supreme Court. I noticed this when I started an article about William L. Harris who served in the Illinois General Assembly. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Hi-I also started an article about Ted Z. Robertson who died recently and served on the Texas Supreme Court, There is a draft about Ted Z. Robertson under Ted Robertson (justice), Again my apologies for the confusion. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your help-RFD (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC) It is my pleasure. We have literally thousands of drafts in various states of completion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices - it is always a great help when we get some movement towards resolving those! bd2412 T 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Allen3 draft Hi, I agreed to take over the draft of Isaac Taft Stoddard that Allen3 had started. It is now at User:MB/Draft8 (where you made a few edits). I was just about finished with it last night when I found that there already is Isaac T. Stoddard. Allen3 was aware of it - he edited that article and his draft on the same day. I'm not sure why he didn't just improve the existing article. The draft is ready to move and is far superior to the existing article. There is nothing that needs to be merged. I could put the draft at Issac Taft Stoddard and redirect Isaac T. Stoddard (I don't believe there is a clear predominance of either T. or Taft in usage). Or we could put it at Isaac T. Stoddard (with a history merge). I was planning to DYK it as a new article. But if it is an existing article, it won't qualify anymore. I can't get it to a 5x expansion with just the online sources I can access (it needs another 3164 characters). Your thoughts? MB 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC) I would move the the existing article to Issac Taft Stoddard, then move the draft to Isaac T. Stoddard, with the other title redirected to it. I wouldn't bother with DYK. I don't know that there's that much more to write on the subject. It may be worthwhile to inventory Allen3's other drafts to see if any others are expansions of existing topics. bd2412 T 23:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC) OK, I did the first move. But I can't move the draft now over the redirect currently at the old article. Since you are familiar with the situation - can you do it. Otherwise I will have to go through RM. MB 01:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)  Done, thanks. bd2412 T 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 1. I kept digging on this article and have expanded it enough to qualify for DYK. It's already been nominated and reviewed (with Allen3 listed as co-author). 2. I looked at several of his other drafts and there are corresponding existing articles and conclude he was doing outlines and documenting sources for improved versions of the articles. Some of the existing articles are poorly referenced, so even if his corresponding draft was shorter than the existing article, it was a start on an improved version. I'll continue to work on these, and perhaps add his work to the talk pages, improve the articles, or whatever else may make sense on a case by case basis (as time permits). 3. User:Allen3/Camp Grant was already deleted as "just an infobox". I'd like to double-check that there wasn't anything there useful to the existing article Camp Grant Massacre. Could you restore it somewhere (my userspace would be fine). MB 04:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Done, it is now at User:MB/Camp Grant. bd2412 T 11:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Help with your draft articles When I find missing info, do you want me to add it to your draft articles? --RAN (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, absolutely! They should all be marked as open drafts for anyone to edit - if they are not, please add that also. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)