I'm not sure what your intention was with unlinking these, but most of them have legitimate targets, such as Function (mathematics). Some might have more specific targets, but a mass unlinking wasn't appropriate. Can you roll these back so a less destructive solution can be found? Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:OVERLINK, not everything needs to be linked, even if it has a legitimate target. At this point, rolling them back would merely mean restoring a bunch of disambiguation links, i.e. putting errors back into the encyclopedia. The editors who have chosen to point this link to a disambiguation page did not see fit to fix them, so I have no reason for confidence that anyone will. However, any editor working on any of these articles has the ability to add links to this and other terms to correct and unambiguous targets. bd2412T 17:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion these should all be rolled back. In mathematics "map" is a tecnical term which needs to be linked to, it is definitely not an example of "overlinking". A disambiguation page, which lists all the various possibilities, is better than no link at all. Paul August☎ 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
By the way no editors chose to point these links to a disambiguatiuon page, rather the page being linked to map (mathematics) was recently changed to a point to the disambiguation page. Paul August☎ 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Restoring the current disambiguation link would create an inaccurate link, as it would lead readers to believe that any link on the disambiguation page was an equally legitimate explanation of the meaning of "map" in the context provided. This is an experience that readers find frustrating and unhelpful, and therefore is harmful to the encyclopedia. The solution is not to roll back link so as to restore errors, but to add different and correct links to articles explaining the particular use of "map" in this context. bd2412T 17:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Now another editor has recreated the original artile at map (mathematics) which no longer redirects to the disambiguation page. So rolling back all your edits will fix things. Paul August☎ 17:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
(sigh), fine. bd2412T 17:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's best for now. Then other interested editors (like myself) can see what links to Map (mathematics), an decide if they instead out to link to some more specific article. Paul August☎ 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I think it's done. Cheers! bd2412T 18:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
So it seems to me automatically getting rid of links to a disambiguation page is a bad idea. Paul August☎ 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is no longer a disambiguation page; it was a good idea to get rid of the links for as long as it was one. It would probably still be useful to further refine the links to the article that now exists at this title. bd2412T 18:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
It looks as though map (mathematics) has become a WP:broad-concept article, which is a good solution in this case. I agree that we should try distinguish different senses of the word 'map' if the article already knows which kind it wants, then link to the exact target. But in some cases the article doesn't yet know which sense the reader is likely to want. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Links to dabs need to be dealt with. The best way to do that varies between cases and is often a matter of judgement. Here's a sample of the last few I helped with. International was an almost automatic unlink: it referred to the dictionary definition, which doesn't have an article. Unisound (briefly ambiguous before being usurped) was an automatic change to Unisound Studios. Pana was a mixture of meanings, requiring manual sorting. Mru needed an appeal for expert help as its meanings are confusingly similar. Ideally, the editor making the disambiguation page is a subject expert who can accurately fix the resulting mis-directed links. If the task of mending the connections is left for others, we do the best we can. Certes (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oof, I got busy shortly after I posted this and couldn't follow up immediately, but I do appreciate the stepping back here so it can be figured out. I hadn't noticed the discussion at the not-dab page either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Language and nationality disambiguation pages[edit]
A couple of editors have recently created a batch of short "X may refer to: X people; X language" dabs, either as new pages or to replace redirects to one or the other topic. That's probably not a bad thing, as they will turn redlinks and misdirected links into links-to-dab that we can resolve. Of course, the usual point about picking up one's own litter per WP:FIXDABLINKS applies. Certes (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've seen at least one of those, whose signature is a lead reading "X may be," [sic]. Their categories often need checking, and they have sometimes failed to link to a DAB page with a different capitalisation. I tend to take the view that with crosslinks in place, merger can happen later. Narky Blert (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I've tidied a few "X may be," pages such as Pa Na and had useful discussions with that editor about more complex pages (multiple peoples and languages) created by others, such as Mru. @Narky Blert: What sort of merger did you have in mind: combining the people and language pages? Certes (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: By no means. Merging small DAB pages which differ only in capitalisation. Yrs. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For relatively short disambiguation pages, I think we do that almost automatically. bd2412T 15:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I employ a mildly devious idea with technical changes like merging DAB pages and deleting pointless see-also hatnotes: namely, my, or the immediately preceding, edit should be the last good version.
Then, if other editors revert future changes, it will be back to something which might not be ideal, but which works. Narky Blert (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a bad plan, my friend. bd2412T 00:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I hold a different position and mean no offence when that varies from your own. Please excuse my opposition to those actions that conflict with my own, which, as i see it, are embracing solutions that accommodate a multitude of sourced opinions and assertions. I also recognise that my own position is founded on my own interpretation of policy, which I believe is very cautious and conservative, and being discourteous in the midst of that is is something I prefer to avoid. CC to JHunterJ Yours sincerely, cygnis insignis 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
In a few months or a few years, Common chimpanzee will be moved to Chimpanzee. Until then, I will continue automatically fixing links to the latter so that they point to the former. You can, of course, help out with that process. bd2412T 21:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying you are going to quietly undermine the consensus that “Chimpanzee” is not a good title for Common chimpanzee? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that I will quietly build a consensus for the proposition that "Chimpanzee" is the better title for Common chimpanzee. I have been effective at marshaling evidence and sources to build consensus over time. For example, it took years to get Hillary Clinton moved there from Hillary Rodham Clinton, to get New York (state) moved there from New York, and to get Cardboard, Battlefield, Stranger, Welcome, Comparison, and the like squared away. In the end, I will always build the stronger case, and that will yield the permanent outcome. bd2412T 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, my considered option is that you can be wrong, and quietly working towards a false consensus is disruptive. Not all chimpanzee are common chimpanzees, and titles stand alone and self-assert, it is not enough for the lede to wind back an inaccuracy. As I expected, time has proven the HRC decision was overly influenced by her last hurrah, quality sources still use HRC, the subject returned to using HRC. You took a long time to convince me on NYC🙂. Not sure about the others, although I agree that you are generally right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
And a lot of people argued that NYC was actually the primary topic for New York at the time, but so far no move has been made to establish a primary redirect to that effect. The current status quo seems to be the stable one. I suspect the same holds for chimpanzee, and that once the disambiguation page is bedded down at the current location nobody will really question it again. Perhaps the term somewhat more frequently refers to the Pan troglodytes rather than Pan as a whole, just as New York somewhat more frequently refers to the city rather than the state. But not enough that to actually have a primary topic. — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case, then a broad concept article is needed, as these are not unrelated topics - contrary to New York, which has a large number of unrelated topics, some with a relatively high profile, populating the disambiguation page. Chimpanzee has one unrelated topic: an obscure film. bd2412T 22:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that. All topics on the DAB page are highly and directly related. Even the film is directly related to a study of chimpanzees. I am not sure exactly what to do about the DAB page, and am not sure what "SIA" is, but I still think, as matches your stated second choice, that "Chimpanzee" should redirect to "Common chimpanzee", meeting the PRIMARYREDIRECT criteria but not the "Best Title" criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd be fine with Chimpanzee redirecting to Common chimpanzee. Everything that a reader seeking clarification would need can properly be included in the lede for that article (with the film in a hatnote). bd2412T 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
BD2412 Can you check Iskandar of Johor , ref number 88. Asian Recorder (1993), pg 22904 ; page 22904, is it right ? Đông Minh (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what that is or how to determine whether it is right. bd2412T 23:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering your decision about merging Firefox version history to Firefox. I'm wondering, will you be making a note of the change at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (for the benefit of those who are only watching that page and do not know that the merge to Firefox has been undone and that a different merge discussion has been opened)? - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. bd2412T 23:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I am very disappointed at your deletion, not because of the deletion but because you empowered vandalism. I decided a no consensus, default to keep, mainly because of errors in logic in many who quoted the "Not News" guidelines, referring to the phrase rather than the actual guideline. This decision was not liked so another user removed it (reverted it). That is a no no. If there is displeasure at an AFD result, the correct procedure is Deletion Review. Yet, you either knowingly or unknowingly made a different decision rather than support the correct procedure of Deletion Review.
I have no skin in the article and do not care about the outcome but I do not like seeing bullies win by violating procedure and vandalism.
Cheesesteak1 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Your objection is noted. bd2412T 03:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Did you know that it had been closed earlier with a no consensus decision? Cheesesteak1 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
As stated, your objection is noted. bd2412T 04:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
This question is not an objection so "your objection is noted" is not a valid answer. Just curious, that's all. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Editors are expected to develop a certain amount of experience before closing discussions, particularly with respect to contentious discussions. This typically requires several months of editing, and perhaps a few thousand good edits. Any editor with a reasonable degree of editing experience can revert an inappropriate attempt to close a discussion. The discussion at issue was not properly closed pursuant to community standards. bd2412T 05:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. "Pursuant to community standards"? That sounds like an attorney wrote it! Cheesesteak1 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it does. bd2412T 05:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
On a completely separate note about the same afd, can I ask what you meant (or intended to mean) by so that information is available to be merged into Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as needed to prevent the historically significant information. Available to prevent? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that should be "as needed to present". bd2412T 13:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender. 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. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I support you and do not agree with DrKay. DrKay's move makes Wikipedia a battlefield, which is not what it should be. Please note, however, that my response is nuanced in that I disagree with your closing of the AFD when it was already closed by me but reverted by an IP. Users should not be allowed to reopen AFD's. However, for the sake of streamlining (in legal terms, since you are an attorney, its like a motion practice where there is a likelihood of creating many billable hours to the detriment of clients and detriment of practical application of due process), I consider that your action was akin to a subsequent AFD, which I honor the results. However, we should not condone reverting AFD and should make it clear that we are not. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There is, however, no scenario under which this review process ends with an article on this topic being restored to mainspace. bd2412T 19:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there a scenario that it is restored to mainspace but I do not recommend it in the interest of streamlining. That scenario is to make Wikipedia whole again (you're an attorney, you know the idea). This would be by restoring my AFD closure as "no consensus, default to keep". The IP user who reverted the AFD closure would then have the option of nominating it for AFD, which you would be free to make the decision that you made. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
However, in Wikipedia, some people have a hard time of understanding the concept so endorsing your AFD in Deletion Review along with the notation that reverting a closed AFD by the IP is improper would be a good streamlined decision. I have recommended "endorse" for the Deletion Review entry. That supports you. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you take another look at your closure as "Keep"? Should it not have been "No Consensus"?? BTW, previous AfDs involving a sock nomination have found that isn't a reason to discount the !vote of the sock (or to look askance at it). Also, there is no such thing as "weak" or "strong" !votes, despite some contributors placing these adjectives in front of their !votes. Even if you discount everything I've said above, if you count 3 !votes to Keep and 2 !votes to Delete, it should still have been returned as a "No Consensus"? HighKing++ 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your asking, but I see no practical difference there, since these decisions are not binding. Even if the !vote had been ten-to-zero snow keep, another editor can come along in six months or a year and nominate the article for deletion again and persuade participants to come to a different consensus. Granted, if the sources raised in the discussion are added to the article, as I have advised, that should be less likely; if not, then it is the fault of those who would defend the article for not following up on their own points of discussion. Without parsing too deeply into the close itself, if other closers have not considered that a nomination was brought by a sockpuppet, that's on them. Sockpuppetry is dubious behavior, and the motives of sockpuppeteers are inherently questionable. As to the first !vote, "leaning" statements are of a somewhat different character than "weak" or "strong" statements. When someone says they are leaning a particular way, it usually means that they haven't come to a final conclusion. Although I didn't go into it in the discussion, comments are often given less weight if afterwards the article under review is substantially improved, or if substantial additional sources are found. With respect to the strength of policy arguments, which must also be weighed here, yours was the only delete !vote to specifically comment on the sources presented in favor of the article. That is commendable, but doesn't change the outcome. bd2412T 19:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks BD2412, for me at least, I always see a difference between a "Keep" result and a "No Consensus" result. Pedantic maybe but hey :-) ... I agree with your stance on sockpuppets but I believed that normal AfD practice was to allow it so long as the sockpuppet hadn't "interfered" with the article itself - I can dig up examples if you like. Personally, I prefer the simple approach and I'd even go so far as to strike any AfDs created by socks - continuing with the AfD just rewards their behaviour. I also missed the difference between "leaning" and "weak", thanks for the explanation. Finally, with regard to "strength of policy" arguments, I don't understand how you weighed the Keep !votes on that basis seeing as none provided any policy based arguments beyond name-dropping a policy in one case. HighKing++ 15:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, BD2412! I think you meant to write there was a consensus against deleting the article. Would you mind amending the close to reflect that? If not, please response on my talk page. Thank you! :D ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖ 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Responding on your talk. bd2412T 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I see you've also discovered Steve Mac. It now links to over 100 dabs (and an unknown number of irrelevant articles) so I've dropped a few hints on the author's talk page. Certes (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that the article (once it’s ready) should be linked with Wikidata item d:Q25635316. Thanks for your work & happy editing, ------ 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do that as soon as it is moved to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412T 20:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
all very smelly and fishy the whole exercise - the mystery to me is what is in the mind of... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ah789/sandbox - to me its less avian than a quacking duck with emphysema, but more a fish trying to go upstream in a jakartan storm drain, but then, I never really got the hang of the place when it wasnt flooding.... JarrahTree 15:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Right now, the flood I'm dealing with is that of disambiguation links. bd2412T 15:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Even if you wish to give no reply, which may or may not be a requirement, can you please indicate that my invitation to respond was received. cygnis insignis 15:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Another user directly created an Ewin Tang article recently but the page is substantially less worked on than the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewin_Tang.
As an admin, would you be able to merge the pages but also keep the edit histories? The initial hesitation around putting the draft in mainspace (Tang's 'notable' papers were still in peer review) looks to be resolved very soon, hence this direct request rather than waiting for the Proposed Mergers backlog to go down. Is this something you can help with? Much thanks for any help or advice you can give. Opto kitty (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Done; I made the newly created article a sortname redirect, at Tang, Ewin. bd2412T 12:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! Much appreciated Opto kitty (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Samuel T. Corn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Why was the Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund article deleted?[edit]
Hi. Why was the Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund deleted when there was no consensus for its deletion? The last time I was at the page 2 days ago, there were only two people that argued for its deletion versus my, so far, limited arguments for its retention. You initially extended the time for discussion, and one more person replied, and then poof it is gone...How is that consensus? I am assuming that you are the person who executed the deletion. Please explain. Thanks. Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund, you asked what "Prod" means and what "RS" means. You made no identifiable argument for retention, nor did anyone else. Counting the nominator, three editors expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted, and no argument was made to the contrary. bd2412T 20:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am also a bit surprised that you decided to delete this... it seems to have a fairly large number of mentions in book sources, as well as having more than just a passing mention in news articles such as [2] and [3]. I would guess an organisation like that would have quite a few offline sources in archives and so on too. I think it's just harder to find the coverage because its main period of operation was in the infancy of the internet. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I assessed consensus, and reasonably (I think) gave great weight to the search results reported by Britishfinance, who is a very productive participant in AfD discussions. However, I would be happy to restore this to draft, if there is an inclination by editors to rework the article there. bd2412T 21:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
(As I was pinged here) I think BD2412's closure was a very sensible conclusion. The search of books above only reveals this fund in directories and listings. There were no actual books, chapters of books, or even sections on books on this fund. Same in a search of newspapers, and even online (no significant RS of which the fund is the subject). An event of a $10m missing payment in 2000 does not make this fund inherently WP notable.
In addition, nobody supported this article or provided any references that would at least support further re-listing or debate. It is not our (or my) desire to have articles deleted, but at the same time, WP is not a collection of "everything", it is a collection of every "notable thing". That is the issue here (or WP:GNG). If you have more sources that you can share (I did mention that maybe there were foreign language sources that I could no see), I would have no issue re-listing this for another week. But I think this AfD does need such participation to merit that. Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I had actually posted a few additions - specifically in regard to the original contention, that of non-notable listed on the page, referring to their various positions and representations on the Board of Directors. You are right, that I did not post those changes, which I did to the original article, in the midst of the deletion discussion. I was under the impression any improvements are supposed to be done on the page itself. I also found a page, in the U.S. Whitehouse archive - which is at Whitehouse.gov that refers to this specific article topic. In addition, I found just from a basic internet search, another page referring to Ted Sorensen, of John F. Kennedy Whitehouse fame and his service on the Board of Directors, for 6 years. I had not posted it yet. But, as I was originally bringing up notability, most of the remainder of alleged non-notables, probably actually deserve their own articles themselves. The successor organization to the Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund, is the U.S.-Central Asia Education Foundation of which there is no Wikipedia article, and there is scant research on the internet of its successor. But there is a lot on the Internet, of all of the participants who served with the Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund. One of the additional articles I had listed in External Links, was a NY Times article which brought up the topic of corruption that dogged this particularly agency toward the end of its existence. That required separate research and probably branching articles. Because of the historical complexity of the larger or broader topic of U.S. government funding in conjunction with private enterprise resources, that emerged out of the Reagan era of government, and became a centerpiece of Bill Clinton's administration, and U.S. congressional activity, followed by George W. Bush's administration, it was an under-researched topic on Wikipedia in its broad sense. This same topic happened also with Eastern Europe. As it turned out, in its longer-term consequences, it was a lesson for politicians as it applies to how to organize private enterprise initiatives in Developing Nations where corruption is as much of a roadblock as the lack of knowledge of how-to-methodologies would be. But my point is, for a 20 year period - roughly 1990-2010, this was a central part of U.S. and Western foreign policy initiatives, to provide foreign aid to foreign nations, on the premise that capitalism would provide the inertia. I did not create this article because I was in favor of what they were doing, but did think that it was an important part of an encyclopedic database, that knew that it was happening in, in this case, Central Asia, or in the other cases, in Romania, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the like. If anything, again it was an underdeveloped topic on Wikipedia that need editors to expand its articulation - not crush it, as was done. Additionally, as noted above by another editor, this specific article (and its broader topic) are listed in a number of printed books, that are, because of the discontinuation of the Google Books initiative, that when it happened, hadn't even reached a halfway point, to scan all of the world's books and put them online, much information will never be digitized. As such, because of Google's changed plans, Wikipedians won't be able to simply use the Internet to find and obtain article sources and references, since many - especially for the most academically-demanding articles - sources won't be available online. I was still in the process - because of the initiator of the article deletion which reacquainted my attention to the article I had started but deserted 10 years ago - of re-familiarizing myself with the topic and researching the specifics as they applied to the article, when the article vanished from the shelves of Wikipedia... But because of the transient nature of the Internet, the Internet has become less important overall as a historical source, and more important as a flashpoint for topical information... As such it may time for some alterations in Wikipedia procedures, so that we don't continue to throw out the babies with the bathwater...Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks, that seems reasonable. I take Britishfinance's points about the book references... it's a borderline case probably, because it seems like there should be loads of material about a federal-government fund of this nature and size, but surprisingly there isn't. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair outcome, and importantly in such cases, there is nothing inherently objectionable to the subject. Would it be useful if an article in this situation could go to Draft for say 2 weeks (to give the appealing editor time to fix/update), but would then automatically be put back into the AfD queue by bot for a re-test? (In fact, if the bot didn't detect any change to the draft article, it would get automatically deleted). I think scenario arises a few times and it would be a useful tool for closers to have? Britishfinance (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the existing structure for dealing with drafts is adequate. It does the project no harm to host this small page in draftspace until it is either improved enough to return to mainspace, or abandoned and deleted in due course. bd2412T 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, just seeing the tag you applied in draft space which I think solves it. Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
How long do we have in here to work on developing this article further? My available time in the very near term is quite limited. As this was a US government foreign policy initiative for over 20 years there is a lot of information, but it requires digging (and reading) through hundreds of pages in books as (talk) has pointed out, and in my travails I have found quite a bit in JSTOR, but each of those necessitate a fair amount of time to review, organize and articulate what has been discerned... Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Six months. Specifically, if the article is not substantially edited within six months, it will automatically be deleted. It is possible, but unlikely, that someone could propose to delete it in a shorter time than that. bd2412T 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
So I thought deletion required a consensus? Apparently, that is not true, is it? In the Wikipedia world it is the dictatorship that reigns, isn't that correct, since a couple of people (in this case 3, against 2 others who disagreed) decided that the article would be deleted... How is that consensus? Also, with Wikipedia: Notability, isn't the issue of notability premised on the topic in question, not necessarily the specific and narrow title of the article? That is what I have gathered at this point on notability in Wikipedia (which has a tremendous amount of non-notable and even trivial articles, particularly on trivial people who use Wikipedia as a forum for self-promotion). From Wikipedia: Notability, I gathered that it was the topic that merits the retention or elimination of an article, not necessarily the more esoteric narrowness that would apply to a specific name of a financial fund such as this? Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Gibson Clark, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. While doing NPP and AfC I have now come across two different Wyoming Supreme Court jurists articles you have written. It would be helpful if you did some cleanup of these before submitting - such as having succession boxes which are either ommitted or formatted correctly. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ping me here or leave a message on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't help if other people submit drafts I have created without taking this step. I never move these to mainspace myself without finishing the succession boxes. bd2412T 00:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if my reverts messed up what you were in the middle of doing. I wanted to restore the status quo as soon as possible. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
No, you did exactly the right thing. There are a handful of actual erroneous links incoming, but those can be policed in the current state of the article. bd2412T 13:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I think it'd be a good idea to add the artist/band along with the album to disambiguation pages. I just did this atKings. Graham87 14:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would be. However, my first priority is to add the missing link at all. I would hope that other editors working on these pages would fill in that information, but if not, I will circle back once all the links have been added. bd2412T 14:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning this up! I learn something new every day. Eddie891TalkWork 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd been wondering whether to put the page up for deletion. I don't see anything special about this time period, and we don't have similar lists for other councils or years. Certes (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not advertising or spam, so I tend not to waste time thinking about it at all. bd2412T 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Could I trouble you to tag the protected redirect Search as {{R from ambig}}? IMO the page history suggests it would be worth maintaining the protection. Thanks, Narky Blert (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.
WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.
See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleincconnect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.
I am not actually a particularly active editor on Apple pages. I just happen to have edited around 1/10 of all articles in Wikipedia, and I have no doubt that this has captured a number of Apple-related pages. bd2412T 16:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
A stalker writes: most of us gnomes have edited Apple-related pages at some point, because people keep linking to Apple when they mean Apple. Certes (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm a active user of Wikipedia. And I have requested for permission for helping Wikipedia for a safer place and help fellow Wikipedian's. If you feel I need more practice though, I'll be happy to gain the permission that will provide me more experience. So, I would like to grab your attention. Im extremely sorry if I words are rude towards you sir. Thank you for taking the time to review my case, and have a nice day! AR.Dmg (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am generally not involved in permissions processes on Wikipedia. Cheers! bd2412T 04:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The article 2022 in film has been recreated. Since you deleted the article last month, you should consider restoring the deleted edits for the article and its talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
It was deleted through AfD, and there is no chance that enough time has passed for this to now be considered permissible following that outcome. Re-deleted, and locked for a year. Please go through WP:Deletion review or WP:Requests for undeletion if you wish to reverse the previous consensus for deletion. However, I'm not a monster, so I have moved it to Draft:2022 in film so that it can continue to be developed in the interim. bd2412T 02:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for adding short descriptions to so many articles. I'm sure it's tedious but it's much appreciated! Marquardtika (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Adil Shahzeb, which was deleted after an AfD that you closed in November, but which has just been recreated? Without being able to see the deleted version I'm not sure whether it's similar enough to meet WP:G4. All the best, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing has been added that would salvage the page from being deleted again. The new version adds that he voted in an election (not a point of notability), and that he "reported on the British-Muslims attack" (unremarkable for a reporter), and that he "holds numerous achievements in his decades long stint as journalist and media person" (unsourced). bd2412T 12:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Some time ago you have unlocked the age of Fresh Kid Ice of the 2 Live Crew. I think I have reached a point where it is one of these articles that read like a good article, since some of the citations are still dubious (working on it).
I wanted to ask you several question.
What is the process of turning an article into a good or star one?
And how do you make an archive of an article, I lost a good citation with Fresh Kid Ice.
The process for making a good article nomination is available at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I would focus on that before going for featured status. I'm not sure what you mean by making an archive of an article. The edit history of each article is preserved in the history tab, so you should be able to go through that history and see every past version of the page. Cheers! bd2412T 18:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. What I mean by archive is if you go Fresh Kid Ice' page citation 24,Schwartz, Zachary (2015). "A BRIEF HISTORY OF ASIANS IN HIP-HOP, FROM 2 LIVE CREW TO "IT G MA"". Playboy. Retrieved November 20, 2015, the article was removed from Playboy. The article is gone.
I did extra research just and found out about the Wayback Machine. I guess I got my answer, if you have any other solution let me know.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you found what you were looking for. Cheers! bd2412T 22:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for interceding re: Mr Ollie's deletion of my edits to well-sourced, widely cited academic articles. He or she is continuing to batch delete every citation to this one academic's work on Wikipedia and refuses to engage on substance or discuss possible violations of wikipedia policies about consensus, edit warring, outing, coi, and harassment. I'd appreciate if you could intervene again. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Michael_Simkovic_references
Mr Ollie also warned that I shouldn't challenge him since I'm new to Wikipedia, in a way which came across as threatening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice that I generally agreed with his explanation for the removal of references citing Michael Simkovic? I'm not sure I'm the person you want interceding here. bd2412T 22:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
