Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412
Please do not edit the name of files in articles as you did to Ramakrishna Math and Mission, Bhubaneswar, it breaks the link to the file. I have corrected the mistake. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The "Show preview" button is right next to the "Publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.
Hello. I am messaging you to make an emergency block request for user:Bigdick247365 because he made a terroristic threat. CLCStudent (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I don't see a "threat" there, but this is clearly an account created solely for vandalism. bd2412T 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I finally got around to writing another article from the ones started by Allen3. Please delete User:Allen3/blakely as it has been developed into William G. Blakely. MB 04:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! bd2412T 02:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
But you didn't delete it. That's my tracking mechanism (the redlinks here). MB 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Oops, yes, deleted. bd2412T 04:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you delete some more that have been made into articles by others: User:Allen3/Bayard, User:Allen3/churchill. These are just redirects now and will make the list a little more red. Thanks. MB 14:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It was not red because I decided to add a redirect. Maybe I should have just done that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee:, per WP:INTDABLINK, when we make an intentional link to a disambiguation page, we use a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect to indicate to the tools that count needed disambiguation repairs that it is intentional, and not an error requiring repair. bd2412T 02:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I get it now. That is exactly what the edit summary said, but when there was a red link, my first thought was to correct it by linking to the actual list. But that shouldn't have been a red link to begin with. I just decided later to create the redirect, which I now realize should have been my first action.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Whenever there is a change on a list of presidential(ly) appointed judges like a resignation, elevation, etc, I feel it's important to note as such in whatever list.
The following are examples:
Trump appointees:
Quattlebaum: Elevated
I realize they don't "technically" end senior status so it's not a "valid" reason however, it gives a reason none-the-less as to how/why their service may have ended. I don't see it uniformly being done yet, but didn't know if it might be a possibility in the future. We can easily leave it as an en dash and that's fine too; my only reasoning is to perhaps orient a reader who may be unfamiliar and/or not know about FJC...
Just a thought. What do you think? Good idea, bad idea, leave it alone?
Here is what happened. I created that article in my user space some time ago. What I intended to do, was to use that user space to start that other thing, and then believed that I was just changing the name in my user space. Whooops. That what I get for thinking. So thanks for streightening that out for me. For all of us. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! bd2412T 21:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again, my intention was NOT to go public with List of trial films until I had done more work on it, I really thought everything I was doing was somewhere in my user domain. or whatever. But now it is done, it looks a bit ragged but there it is and I'll just work on it in situ. Thank you again, again. Carptrash (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I made a few tweaks to it also. I would recommend having a single "actors" column, rather than two labelled "actor". bd2412T 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that the article was only moved in May, on the strength of only three supports (one of whom has since changed their mind), after 15 years at the World Heritage Site title, shouldn't the default "no consensus" be to revert to that long-term title? Also, please could you explain how you evaluated the arguments, because your close seems to set a new precedent (yet again) for how we evaluate what proportion of sources are needed to establish capitalisation. We already changed from "consistently capitalised" to "substantial majority", and we can't keep flip flopping like this. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If I were merely voting in the discussion, I would support the move, but that does not render the existing title impermissible. We have no set rule on how long an article must be at a particular title before it can be considered the stable title, but this is not a case where there was an immediate effort to reverse the previous discussion. The fact that the previous discussion drew low participation does not invalidate it; any editor watching the page or WP:RM could have participated at that time. bd2412T 22:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The title was fully capitalised for many years, as it is now lowercase this creates inconsistency with other articles and categories. Do you think it would be reasonable to move these for consistency even though the close was no consensus? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
That would be a topic for an RFC on how we enforce those rules. bd2412T 22:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I have a lot of sympathy for Amakuru‘s argument for “no consensus” defaulting to the long term stable title. If that is not a winning argument, it creates incentive to edit war to create instability for the current title. A complication is that WHs was the title for the first four versions for five months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your agreement, SmokeyJoe, even though we didn't see eye-to-eye on every aspect of this RM. The rules call for us to revert to the "long-term stable title" in the event of a no consensus close, and it's frankly a bit absurd to claim that the name signed off a few months ago with barely any discussion is more long-term and stable than the 15-year title which nobody ever questioned at all until the middle of this year. This doesn't need an RFC, it just needs a bit of common sense from the closer, who is an experienced admin. — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
As an experienced admin, I can tell you that reverting to the "long-term stable title" is the resolution if the current title is the result of an edit war, not a previous consensus-based process. Otherwise, any person dissatisfied with the outcome of any RM regarding a longstanding title could reverse that outcome merely by starting a new RM proposal in the next few months and having in a lack of consensus, which would be absurd. Your problem is not with my close, but with the close by User:Anarchyte of the previous discussion. I would suggest asking them to reverse their close based on the paucity of participation. It is not my place to reverse the determination of consensus by a previous admin. bd2412T 15:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
My broad reading of it all:
First four stub versions, all 19 March 2002. [1] were "World Heritage site"
Fifth version was an expansion and minor wikification, still a "stub", 19:04, 17 August 2002, by Montrealais (talk·contribs), re-styled to "World Heritage Site"
Late in the discussion, User:Amakuru 12:33, 13 September 2018, had made the argument ""World Heritage Site" (the long-term stable title until a few months ago)", but this was not well discussed, I guess not well enough for the closer to User:BD2412 be to obliged to address it.
I think it is very easy to challenge WHs as the long term stable version. I think it is very easy to assert that WHS is the first non-stub version and and easy to assert that it is the long term stable version. Personally I support high weight being given to the first non-stub version, as it provides the least opportunity for gaming.
User:BD2412 is well within his right to decline to act. The question could be resolved in a fresh RM, which should wait for two months to begin unless permission is given by either User:BD2412 or User:Anarchyte. Alternative, a consensus could be sought immediately at WP:MRV, where the MRV nomination should outline this history and review the multiple RMs and pages moves of the page. I recommend MRV, as this is very much a back-room discussion matter that disrupts the article talk page as a forum for improving the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As I implied in this discussion, I do not have a strong opinion about this, so if there is consensus to overturn the RM I closed four months ago, I have no problem with it. However, the "long standing title" is World Heritage Site (capitalised), so if there is a lack of consensus and my closure has been adequately refuted, it should default back to what it was in May. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not saying that the original discussion was not closed correctly. Any editor could have participated in or extended the first discussion. If the first discussion had ended up looking like the second, there would have been no consensus to move the page in the first place. My point is that the "long standing title" rule only applies until there has been a consensus to change the title. Once a new consensus is established, as it was in the first discussion, a later no-consensus discussion does not overturn that. bd2412T 11:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
And, to be clear on my part, I absolutely concur that the original close was not incorrect. It was fine based on the evidence at the time. But things have moved on. And your interpretation on a "new consensus" is simply incorrect. If a year had passed, or even six months, I would agree. The new title would be stable. But this was questioned almost immediately and the second discussion was clearly a corollary of the first. As such they should be considered together, and the "long-term stable title" is unambiguously not the current one, notwithstanding the RM on the subject a couple of months ago. Any other interpretation gives the greenlight for slipping any number of no-consensus moves under the radar by listing them in the middle of the summer holidays and waiting for a low turnout RM to reverse a long term title, which is effectively what's happened here. From what Anarchyte and Smokey Joe say above, I think they concur with that interpretation, and this should now be reverted back to the previous stable title. — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I would disagree with the characterization that the original discussion was under the radar due to summer holidays. A discussion can go unnoticed any time, but it is often the case that a low-participation discussion merely reflects that the usual RM participants don't care one way or the other about the proposal in question. There were some better-attended discussions during that period (e.g., Talk:Longfellow (disambiguation), Talk:GJ 1245). I would also point out that in the most recent discussion there were as many people in opposition to restoring the previous title as there were in support of it. This is by no means a slam-dunk proposition. bd2412T 00:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Amakuru, I do not agree with badgering User:bd2412. User:bd2412 made a completely proper and easily defensible decision at Talk:World_Heritage_site#Requested_move_27_August_2018, and is justified in not reviewing the longer history or RETAIN considerations due to these considerations not being much evident in that discussion.
I find this very reminiscent of my first post on yogurt, here. The difference between WHS and Yogurt is that WHS has not been subject to long running bad behaviours. I note that edit warring, or even talk page disruption at Talk:WHS, will increase the chance of it being moved back to WHS, and this should be better resolved rationally.
Above, User:Anarchyte 07:24, 25 September 2018, gives sufficient implied permission to open a new RM to move it back to WHS as the first non-stub version, which shouldbe the default given the current state of "no consensus".
I recommend again WP:MR, not to challenge either close per se, but to review the status quo versus the two RM discussions together, and rest of the talk page and the article history. I think this is squarely in scope of MR, speaking as someone involved in MR since its beginning. WP:MR is a very good forum for these nuanced procedural concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the advice, SmokeyJoe. I'll file an MR later. And apologies BD if I have badgered you. That was not my intention, and my querying of your good faith close is only because I disagreed with it, not because you did anything wrong. I'll leave you in peace now. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine being badgered. I think a properly framed MR is a reasonable way to resolve this. bd2412T 01:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks BD2412, and apologies for the delay on this, but I've now opened the Move Review. See WP:MRV#World Heritage site. — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
If I went and put tens of thousands of Eastern name order Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Hungarian names in the sort name categories, despite me not believing them to be sort names, would it be difficult to sieve them back out at a later date? I want to create all the missing redirects but not putting them in any category would make them much harder to find later on. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I was not aware that Hungarian names were an issue. With respect to sieving such names out, the way to do that would be to create a maintenance category to accompany the sort name category (perhaps a set of them for the different nationalities). I don't think I would make a priority of it. bd2412T 19:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I've changed my mind. I cannot bring myself to add it to Abe Noriyuki when Abe, Noriyuki already exists. No category is better than the wrong category. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In theory, all redirects should be categorized somehow. Perhaps a different categorization scheme altogether is needed for these. bd2412T 22:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Charm (physics). Since you had some involvement with the Charm (physics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Widefox; talk 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey there, I see you are also disambiguating links to The Advocate after the article move. I wanted to let you know that I've come across a few links that actually should have been to other disambiguations, in particular The Advocate (Louisiana) and The Advocate (Stamford). Though it's pretty easy to tell if the LGBT mag is correct based on the context of the section/article or the url when present. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 22:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I am primarily looking at articles in LGBT categories or with LGBT terms, so I would expect those to be minimal in my run. bd2412T 23:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This has been taken care of. Kindly disregard the above message. Also, apologies for the confusion/mess. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Cheers! bd2412T 01:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
So, what do you want me to do? Open ANOTHER move request? What happened to consensus being rooted in policy, not votes? The evidence is on the table...the 'policy-based' result is clear. In the meantime, we are using a crap name that does not even appear in the sources the article was based on, and information about Japanese varieties of these melons is forced to exist under a 'Korean' label. At least you should have moved it to the scientific name...ANYTHING! Instead, we have a mess, and politics have won out over rationality. Why exactly have you made yourself a party to this travesty? RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't "want" you to do anything. The current name is permissible as a name that does appear in sources. I would suggest moving on to other topics. If this page move is worth carrying out, eventually someone else will come along with the same idea. bd2412T 03:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I went through a lot of effort to attain this picture. A kind farmer from Shizuoka uploaded it for me.
I'm afraid that won't cut it, dear fellow. Perhaps you find me some peculiarity, easy to toss into some sort of quarantine bin, where I can be ignored and otherwise disparaged for no apparent reason. However, you cannot deny that the present title is not acceptable under WP:AT. If you try to say otherwise, you're marking yourself as one of the crazed political editors who puts his or her own personal opinion ahead of the good of the encylopaedia...and that's not an acceptable stance on the part of an administrator. You can propose a course of action to get this sorted, or I will take my own action to do so. I have no interest in casting aside the hours I spent translating Japanese sources, sifting through journals, and indeed, contacting a Japanese grower of these melons, so as to be able to put decent pictures in the article. This is the definition of an epistemic violence...something you should think on before continuing with this facade of neutral aloofness. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The removal of one sockpuppet !vote from the discussion does not result in a retroactive consensus in favor of the proposal, or render the current title impermissible. It does not eliminate the input by User:Kevmin and User:Damvile, who are not implicated in the sockpuppetry at issue. bd2412T 02:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't negate their input...but, closures should be determined by consistency with policy and guidelines, not a counting of votes. Kevmin preferred the scientific name, which I was fine with, and Damvile was just following me around to cause trouble...he didn't offer any substantive reason for his opposition...your continued argument sounds like a WP:SUPERVOTE...nothing more. The only 'substantive' opposition was by the sock-puppet... RGloucester — ☎ 02:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
You are free, of course, to take your case to WP:MR. Otherwise, you can wait a few months, marshal your evidence, and file another move request. bd2412T 02:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I will do no such thing. There is no obligation to wait 'months'. As soon as I am certain these socks are cleaned up, a new RM will be launched, as it should be. No more. You really ought reconsider your attitude...I fear that you do not have the qualifications necessary to close any move discussion. In any case, farewell. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure you know how it will look if you open another discussion weeks after failing to garner a consensus for the same change. If you are unhappy with my having the admin bit, you are equally free to raise a discussion about that at WP:ANI. bd2412T 03:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It will look perfectly right and proper to anyone with a brain, I assure you. Certainly, my future actions will look better than yours, which take the side of POV pushing socks over that of those who actually contribute to the encylopaedia and have its best interest at heart. Do you realise that your closure has been used as justification by this pile of socks to create selective machine translations of that article into other languages? The relevant socks simply machine translate the term "Korean melon", without any regard for whether that resulting term is actually used in the relevant languages, and then selectively takes bits of the text I wrote and machine translates them, purposely not translating the bits about Chinese and Japanese cultivation of the relevant melon. Is that the type of behaviour you endorse? I, of course, cannot fix these machine translated articles, as I cannot understand the relevant languages. So, great. Let's invent new terms for a melon variety in various languages, and erase its well-documented history of cultivation in certain places...great strategy! Well, Mr BD2412 says it's ok, so it must be right! RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Your own returns showed hundreds of Google Books hits for "Korean melon". As to your other concerns, I give no weight to slippery slope arguments. bd2412T 03:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I have never once questioned the existence or usage of the term 'Korean melon'. In my previous comment now, I was referring to machine translations of that term into other languages, independent of actual usage of the resulting term in those languages. Did you even read what I wrote here, let alone at the actual RM? There is no question of a 'slippery slope'...this has already happened, and you are partly responsible, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter, though. I will work to remedy this problem. I will always fight for our principles, and for our policies and guidelines. You should learn to do the same. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to this point moved all but a handful of the U.S. presidential election articles. I am going to move the remaining few for consistency with the titles already moved, but I will cease moving other kinds of elections articles for now. bd2412T 22:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The articles need to go through RMs, at least for a few test cases such as the 2016 one, which will be a highly watched page, just to determine if this is really the consensus amongst those watching and participating on those pages. The RFC concerned was completely inadequate for a multimove on this scale. — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, and have expressed my views in that discussion. This RFC was far better attended than most WP:MR discussions. bd2412T 22:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
can you please tell me clearly what A7 means i dont understand why was it deleted the reference was from notable website AVN.com
Thank you Iamheentity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the website is notable does not by itself render the subject notable. See WP:PORNBIO for the requisite indicia of notability in this field, none of which is applicable to this subject. bd2412T 12:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Your close of this discussion seems quite improper in that seven days has not yet passed and there was no consensus for the move which you have made. As the page is being developed per our editing policy, it should be left in mainspace for ordinary editing to continue. If you consider the current draft to be unsatisfactory, then you should revert to a previous version rather than disrupting current activity and discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I would have moved this to draft irrespective of whether there was an AfD. The draft is not merely "imperfect"; it is laden with disambiguation links, which make it unnecessarily disruptive to the disambiguation project. Reverting to a prior version of the draft would not be helpful, when what is needed is repair of the current state. There is no urgency to have this article in mainspace. bd2412T 22:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of science fiction short stories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page and speedily deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if you're the right person to ask about this, but you're the most qualified person who has edited the Ballarat page in the last month.
There's a photo in the article captioned "Bust of Alfred Deakin, first federal member for Ballaarat at the Prime Ministers Avenue.". Ballaarat is the old name for the division, and Ballarat is the new name as of 1977. Which spelling is more fitting for the caption?
Thank you for any help, and apologies if there was a better place to ask this question.
This discussion could perhaps benefit from a review by an experienced admin. I am of course convinced that I am always correct! but per WP:CANVASS, I only ever ask for opinions from editors whose opinions I feel sure will be independent. (I most often just post neutral notifications on WikiProject Talk Pages, as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Rise of Macedon). That aside, 3+ WP:RMs within a calendar month suggests to me WP:POINT- and WP:AGENDA-pushing by one or more editors. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I will have a look in a bit. Cheers! bd2412T 00:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Macedonian is one of those words which rings my alarm bells. Assyrian, Persian and Turkish are others. They are sometimes used as attempts to link a modern ethnonym to a glorious past.
According to my layman's understanding, the Ancient Greeks (or, better, Hellenes) classified themselves within three tribes: Aeolians, Dorians and Ionians. The Ancient Macedonians (to their north) might have spoken a form of Greek, but they were not Hellenes. It is, however, easy for editors to cherry-pick the ancient sources to argue that they were Hellenes.
The Rise of Macedon did not start with an invasion of mainland Greece. It started with Philip's and Alexander the Great's subjugation of the hill tribes on their northern borders. (Don't fight a war on two fronts.) Only once that was complete could they consider a southward attack. The Greek city-states were squabbling and divided, and Alexander took them apart and united them under his rule. (Ah, OK, so maybe the Macedonians are actually Hellenes! - that's a lot less embarrassing than being conquered by barbarians - our national legend is about repelling the Persians.)
Fast-forward to the present day. There are two claims to be the heir of Ancient Macedon: the Greek and Greek-speaking region of Macedonia, and the Slavic-speaking Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. They've been squabbling over the rights to the name ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 90s. Every time something gets in the news, the WP:AGENDA-pushers and the trolls come out to play. Hence, my request for oversight by an impartial admin. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That seems to be pretty much the discussion in the RM. I have run up against it in passing a few times. bd2412T 03:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit like the undisputed claim that Boudicca/Boadicea is a British national heroine. She was British only in the ancient sense (i.e. Celtic), and she was by modern standards a war criminal. Since her day, the island of Britain has been invaded by Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, Vikings and Normans. It's a sort of ancient historical WP:INHERIT. Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
File:HughesComplex.jpg listed for discussion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HughesComplex.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Resolved, thanks. bd2412T 00:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi BD, as far as I can tell, you're the most recent admin to make a non-involved edit at Smallfoot (film). There has been an ongoing ridiculous edit war involving massive plot summary expansion [2] by a New South Wales IP. He has been reverted by multiple editors including myself. He has been removing the invisible notice about the 400-700 word plot guideline each time [3]. Apparently no one is willing to block the anon because he's technically not a vandal and we coddle trolls and the incompetent, but sprotection would be greatly appreciated. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I have commented in this discussion, thanks. bd2412T 00:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
invite to help edit some Fourth Amendment related pages[edit]
Hi BD2412, just wanted to invite you to help edit some Fourth Amendment related pages. I left a message on WikiProject US Constitution Talk which fills out the details and lists the pages.
Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It is a bit far afield from my current practice. Cheers! bd2412T 00:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
BD2412 Ah, thought you might be interested since you are member of that project. Anyway, thanks for the reply! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi BD2412! I wanted to ask for your input on a page for Dennis E. Taylor (Author), it was deleted about a year ago but his profile has risen significantly in the last 12 months and I believe he meets the Notability guidelines now. I'd appreciate your feed back if possible!
I have restored the page to Draft:Dennis E. Taylor. You can work on it there, and once you feel that it has been sufficiently improved, you can request that it be moved to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412T 00:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll get right on it :) Adameparker (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the "consistency" is that your move summary refers to. In the nomination form for this one, US or U.S. is not mentioned, so why not just take it out? Perhaps use Cañon City Post Office and Federal Building? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for pointing that out. My impression was that the US vs U.S. thing was pretty random, but for gov't buildings maybe not. In any case, I'm not clear on why that's part of the title; I can't find any sources calling it that, other than wiki mirrors; sorry I didn't notice and move it before. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It is of no great moment. I happen to be doing other work in the area, so that fit into my comma-space fixing run. bd2412T 03:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see the NRHP database referenced does list it as "US Post Office and Federal Building--Canon City Main". Seems rather contorted to choose as a title though. I might just turn it around. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the space-comma fixing, too. I'd get me some of that AWB, if it wasn't Windows-only. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize that it was Windows-only. They should do something about that. bd2412T 04:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, regarding this, do you mind explaining why it's better categorized as a set index instead of a disambiguation page? There isn't much more that can be added to the page. I have looked at Wikipedia:Set index articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The closest applicable policy would be WP:DABCONCEPT. The clear primary topic of the phrase Homosexual sexual practices is "sexual practices" that are "homosexual", a term that encompasses people of either sex. Male and female homosexual practices are not ambiguous to each other; they are different instances of the same group of thing. bd2412T 01:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought about the WP:DABCONCEPT guideline as well, but there is no need for a Homosexual sexual practices article when we already have the Gay sexual practices article and the Lesbian sexual practices article. There were issues with trying to create a Homosexual sexual practices article in the past (when it was titled "Homosexual behavior"); see Talk:Homosexual behavior and Talk:Homosexual sexual practices, including people associating "homosexual sexual practices" or similar with gay males. That stated, yes, "Homosexual sexual practices" and "Gay sex" could be redirected to "Gay sexual practices" since, even though "gay sex" is not limited to males, the "Gay sexual practices" article is about males...with a hatnote noting that the Lesbian sexual practices article is about females. But there is also the word homosexual intercourse. "Homosexual intercourse" also currently redirects to "homosexual sexual practices." See Talk:Homosexual intercourse. It seems even more limiting to have "homosexual intercourse" redirect to the Gay sexual practices article than to have "Gay sex" redirect there. Anyway, I can live with the set index categorization since it avoids past issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in the deleted page that would justify having this page exist as a draft. The subject does not come close to meeting WP:PORNBIO, much less the general notability guidelines. bd2412T 19:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out at Open source. This page could use an expert eye. I've been in discussions with the editor who made most of the recent edits (see talk page) but we're not quite sure where to go from here. It feels more like a BCA than a dab to me: it's not distinguishing between distinct meanings of "open source" but listing articles which apply the same broad concept to areas such as software and cola(!). Help and advice welcome please (though I won't be acting on it tonight as it's bedtime here). Certes (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It's more than I wanted to get tangled up in this week, but, eh, what the hell. bd2412T 23:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. I think that someone is playing games on the Talk page of the Corporation as my comments don't appear. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't see any reason in the page history why comments would not be appearing. bd2412T 21:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Trust me, the admins are messing around. Anyhow, am I allowed to comment, now? I was blocked and now I am not, I guess. I don't know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Please reconsider your close of the above-noted AfD. There were no comments suggesting draftification as an alternative to deletion, so your choice to draftify instead of delete or relist is effectively a supervote. The article is from 2009 - this is not a new article under active development that should be returned to draftspace to incubate, it is an old article that has had plenty of time to develop in mainspace. The article will be as ignored in draftspace as it has been in articlespace. Essentially, your close has done nothing but postpone deletion for six months until G13 kicks in, which is pointless. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no obligation for an admin to relist an article for which the time for discussion has run. Presumably, the editors who are normally active in AfD saw this nomination and did not consider it worth weighing in on. If this article had not been sent to draft, it would have been kept for lack of consensus to delete, at which point it would remain in mainspace, probably for much longer than six months. bd2412T 01:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
There's no obligation to relist, but it's certainly better than backdoor deletion by way of draftification. The keep arguments were incredibly weak (as I demonstrated in my unanswered rebuttals), and since AfD is a discussion not a numerical vote, closing as outright deletion would have been a much more sensible assessment of the results of the discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It may be unlikely that sources will be found by which the article can be improved, but stranger things have happened. If editors believe that this article can be demonstrated to be worth keeping, let them have their shot. In the meantime, the article is not in mainspace, and if no such sources are found, will be deleted with no further issue. bd2412T 02:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
That is exactly the kind of backdoor deletion we are supposed to avoid, per WP:DRAFTIFY. As it seems unlikely you will reverse your close, I have taken the closure to DRV for review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Samahang Kapatid. 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.
I have refunded the page to draftspace at Draft:ChopSquad DJ. It is move-protected, so that you will need an administrator to restore it to mainspace if it is sufficiently improved to address the concerns raised in the original AfD discussion. bd2412T 13:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. please why was the page deleted so that I will know how to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy 2milli (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
for blatant disregard of our harassment policy? Did you even look at their block log? This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last - our inaction and unwillingness to do anything is just telling everyone this behaviour is A-OK. - TNT💖 21:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the first time for this issue, and it matters that, as far as all the evidence suggests, this was a single call politely made with intent to offer help. "Harassment" typically requires a pattern of behavior directed at the recipient of the harassment. 24 hours is enough to indicate that we are serious about this, so that the problem will not be repeated. I am well aware of Jytdog's history of interactions leaning into the abrasive - usually when dealing with blatant spammers - but this does not even seem to be a case of that kind of interaction. bd2412T 21:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to correct you on this, BD2412, but this user has a block log that includes a lengthy oversight block. Obviously, I can't reveal the exact nature of the actions that resulted in that block. Nonetheless, oversight blocks are almost uniformly for inappropriate revelation or use of personal information that is not present on-wiki. There was an additional block in 2015 that is very similar in nature (although we didn't call them "oversight blocks" back then). This is not a new issue here, and I'm quite disappointed that you would swap out a block like this for a mere 24 hours. This isn't a small issue. It's not helpful to make these kinds of changes without contacting the blocking administrator or at least fully understanding the block history of the user involved. Writing as someone who has been on the receiving end of unsolicited off-wiki contact in the past (which almost caused me to quit Wikipedia), I hope you will consider this in the future. Risker (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Risker - disappointed doesn't cut it for me though. @BD2412: You can see the oversight blocks in the log, yes? Did you not feel the need to consult someone who can actually give you the full picture before barging in and reducing the block? - TNT💖 21:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This is not a scientific calculation. An indefblock was uncalled for. Perhaps more than a 24 hour block is reasonable, but if the goal is to warn rather than to punish, I can't see much point to it. bd2412T 22:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
"Indefinite" does not mean permanent. It buys time to talk things out without the pressure of the block being automatically reversed regardless of any ongoing discussion. I'm getting the impression that you don't think the user's actions were particularly problematic. Perhaps if someone you didn't know, who may or may not be somebody you'd interacted with online, suddenly called you up to try to "help" you edit Wikipedia, you'd see why this behaviour is beyond the pale; I certainly hope it never happens to you, because most people find it distressing, even frightening. If this didn't involve a longstanding and (at least somewhat) popular editor, the discussion would have been whether or not he was banned from the project, not whether the block should be reduced to a very short, set period. I really hope that you think about this. Risker (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider Jytdog to be "popular", but he is definitely a very hard-working editor who is clearly here to help build an encyclopedia. We could use more with his work ethic, if not his temperament. bd2412T 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Does being "hard-working" make it okay? Is There'sNoTime not a hardworking administrator whose blocks should be discussed before being reversed? It's a pretty slippery slope. We've had lots of examples of "hard-working" contributors who had to be restrained because of some aspect of their behaviour. Let's try not to make that the standard. Risker (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It should be considered before making a block indefinite. Yes, that doesn't necessarily mean forever, but it suggests the possibility, particularly when there is no indication given at the time of blocking that the indefinite status is temporary and will be revisited. Just as a long block can be shortened, a short initial block can be lengthened if circumstances require it. bd2412T 22:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think we're just going to have to amicably disagree on this point. Frankly, I'm having a hard time imagining why you'd think that 24 hours was a suitable block for the nature of the incident, but perhaps it is simply the difference in our experiences in the area of off-wiki issues and inappropriate use of personal information of other users. In any case, it looks like you'll need to explain all this to others instead of me so I'll just fade away here. Risker (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to amicably disagree. Cheers! bd2412T 23:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, a significant factor to consider was Jytdog's statement that he understands that what he did was wrong and does not intend to do it again: [4]. The timestamp for that diff is 16:34, November 27, 2018. The issuance of the original, indefinite block was at 20:47, slightly more than four hours later, per the block log. In my opinion, that makes the reduction to 24 hours quite reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Hi, I'd like to ask you about your closing decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Cincinnati (MLS). You closed the discussion as no consensus, which I agree with. However, you said that the status quo was for the separate MLS article to remain, which I disagree with. The MLS article only existed for fifteen minutes before I started that AfD. Prior to November 13, information about the FC Cincinnati MLS team had been covered in the USL team's article. The club ownership first started publicly pushing for an expansion club in late 2016, and the expansion club was officially announced in May 2018. To me, it doesn't make sense to keep the separate MLS article as the status quo, when the implicit consensus for many months has been to cover the USL and MLS teams in a single article. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion at issue was a request for deletion of the article that had been created. There was no consensus for the deletion of that article. The status quo referenced in the close was the state of the article existing. Although merger was supported by some in the discussion, this was not a request for merger, and that process still remains an option open for discussion. bd2412T 04:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not see where the RFC in question covered campaigns. Only elections and referenda are mentioned. So why should these be changed?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The issue is exactly the same, and leaving them as is would make the titles for the campaigns inconsistent with the title for the elections of the same year. Also, relative to the tens of thousands of election articles, there were only a handful of these. bd2412T 16:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
