A 24-hour head count is no way to make a decision, especially given that most of the replies were by idiots. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome to take the matter to WP:Deletion review. Irrespective of any issues with the article that may be resolved by editing and improvement, I stand by my WP:SNOW close. BD2412T 19:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I found some recordings and images at the Internet Archive. Adding media to pages is not my specialty, so I have posted the links to the talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Allen Banks Burch, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Can you please take a look at my message to this user here. Do you think the RM closes I pointed out in the message are justified? Why or why not? Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how either of those could have been closed otherwise. BD2412T 22:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you closed this AfD citing WP:BCAST as the reason. BCAST is neither a guideline nor a policy and does not have the support of the community. NCORP is the appropriate guideline and none of the Keep !voters provided references that meet the criteria for notability. Can you take another look? Thank you, I know its a hassle. HighKing++ 21:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I have looked further into the entity, and I believe that it is well-enough reported. If it is not kept as a separate article, it should probably be merged into its parent company, Malayala Manorama, which may be an alternative worth proposing. BD2412T 22:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
There's someone else wondering about her inevitable demise and aftermath today, at Talk:Deaths in 2020. You two should probably talk. The news suggests she's currently fine, but it's never too early to hammer out a basic consensus on a famous actress' Best Three Films, y'know? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think I'll pass on that one. BD2412T 03:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you help us ,and Create an article
about famous person
I mention you, can see the detalis
Stay safe,regards
Mevlut Bin Omar (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I have my hands pretty full. Why don't you create a draft of the article in userspace or draftspace? BD2412T 03:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Your thoughts - is it ready for a co-nom GAC?? AtsmeTalk📧 12:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Want to hear something crazy? I've been here for 15 years, and made over 1.5 million edits and over 5,000 articles, and I don't believe I have ever yet gone through the GAC process. I'm up for it! BD2412T 14:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Well, let's give it another once-over and then tomorrow, if you agree, you co-nom us and get your feet wet in GA country. How could anybody have over 1.5 million edits!! Day-em.AtsmeTalk📧 14:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I am kidding about no part of it. Let's rock. BD2412T 14:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hugo T. Wedell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
William West Harvey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Jay S. Parker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Here's something to think about...Wikipedia staying on the cutting edge as the sum of all knowledge. - the article, Sturgeon - What if I donated the following segment to the project for inclusion in that article? 4:00 - 7:10?? And possibly close it with another clip (54:00 - 56:00) before the credits roll? I've mentioned the use of video in various discussions over the years but never pushed it because some of the trial articles would include my contributions of clips from programs I produced back in the 90s. I don't want the focus to change from the benefits of having video integrated into our articles to potential COI discussions about me, if you know what I mean. Anyway, see how Everipedia is utilizing video in their articles. The difference in our situation is that the videos would be hosted with our article instead of sending readers off-site to YouTube. AtsmeTalk📧 20:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The Bill Murray part? BD2412T 21:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, leading in from Bob to Bill. It's a 3 min clip from a one-hour program. I'd be giving away (donating) about $7k worth of footage to WP. AtsmeTalk📧 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I would think that the segment after Bill Murray from 7:11 up to about 9:48, discussing the kinds of sturgeon and their characteristics, would be more apt for the article. Bill Murray is a bit flip, and talks about some non-sturgeony things. Did I ever tell you that I made a proposal at Wikimania about five years ago that Wikimedia should get into the business of collaborative documentary filmmaking? It hasn't been followed up on, sadly. BD2412T 22:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
No, you didn't. Was it a formal proposal? AtsmeTalk📧 23:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I gave a talk on it. The reception was very mixed, but basically I said that we have people within the community who are able to find or make all the pieces that would go together to make a documentary on just about any natural history topic. All we need is a collaborative video editing platform. BD2412T 23:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, next chance we get, let's put our heads together and make them an offer they can't refuse...especially considering the technology we have available to us today. At least Alexa reads the lead, which is why we need to be extra careful that our leads closely adhere to BLP policy & NPOV. AtsmeTalk📧 23:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I do like a challenge. Sometimes the only way to prove to the doubters that a thing can be done is to buckle down and actually do it. That, incidentally, is how I came to write the article on Size, because other editors thought that the topic was so abstract that it couldn't be done. I couldn't pass that up. BD2412T 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
BD2412, not sure what to do here. I want to split the Template:Ars nova into two seperate templates of "Ars nova" and "ars subtilior" since at the moment it contains both for some reason. At the moment Template:Ars subtilior simply redirects to the Template:Ars nova so... do I nominate the redirect to be deleted (is that even a thing?) and make the template... or put up the split for discussion somewhere? (WP:TDF seems to only be for deletion and merging but I could be wrong) I doubt the split would result in any opposition since Ars nova and Ars subtilior are separate articles and movements. Also, I'm glad to see you're continuing to watch the Isleworth page (and editing it too!), the previous conversation did admittedly get a little hostile, but I'd like to think we all resolved it to some extent... Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and split the template out. Let me know what you think. As for the Isleworth, I am still knocking that around the back of my mind. I am not a fan of Wikipedia appearing to take sides in authorship disputes, and prefer the "teach the controversy" approach where we merely point out what arguments and counterarguments are made by who, and let the reader draw their own conclusions from that data. BD2412T 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the split, I tweaked it a little but it looks good. Normally I would be with you on your view of how to present controversial topics, but the fact that this is a Leonardo makes things more tricky. That is to say, in preparation for gradually working on the Leonardo da Vinci article (to eventually reach FA, hopefully...) I've been collecting more sources and they all address many paintings by Leonardo or those attributed to him. The issue with the Isleworth is that not a single one of these sources even addresses (a couple mention it in passing) it's potentiality as an authentic Leonardo. Some of the books are the opinions of scholars and others, like Zollner and Marani attempt to display the art community's current consensuses on individual works. Controversial works like La Bella Principessa and Bacchus that have sometimes been attributed to Leonardo are discussed by these authors, but with far more attention and consideration than the Isleworth. That's the core of the issue, no leading Leonardo scholars even play with the idea that it's authentic (or partly), and the people who do push its authenticity the most are past owners of the painting or an organization that was literally founded to prove its authenticity (they weren't even founded to "investigate" or "consider" the authenticity, it was simply to prove it...). The other issue is that online sources are equally unreliable, I've seen some claim that "most experts are skeptical" and others that "the vast majority of experts agree with a partial attribution" but who are these experts? I just can't fathom how I have books by the world's leading Leonardo experts but none of them even explore the attribution as a possibility, so how can there be even close to a majority that supports the attribution? The shady (alleged) connections between the foundation and owners of the painting is also troubling. I hope I'm not just repeating to you parts of the conversation from the talk page since this message (imo) better explains the issue as a whole. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It's a fascinating topic, but likely a conversation for another day, as my attention is primarily on other projects at the moment. I certainly think that in such cases, it is worth lining up the the identities of the people who argue one side, and those who argue the other side, and note their asserted qualifications and affiliations. Of course, with scientific disputes (is the Earth flat, do vaccines cause autism), it is also possible to bring in scientific studies and replicability of experiments, which makes these things more clear-cut. I'm glad the template split worked out. Cheers! BD2412T 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
BD2412: I just noticed that the page G-Log was deleted last year after a formal nomination process. I believe this company still to be relevant, because it had a notable product as recognised by Gartner. In the Magic Quadrant for Transportation Management System, 13 April 2010, by C. Dwight Klappich (Gartner RAS Core Research Note G00174077), the following was mentioned: “OTM has a mature and stable product development team that Oracle inherited when it acquired G-Log. Oracle has impressively been able to keep this team intact and add to it four years after the acquisition”. If you need more information or evidence to justify re-opening the page, let me know what you’re after. Thanks - Landriesse (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I have restored the article to Draft:G-Log, but it will need substantial improvement to meet WP:NCORP. BD2412T 20:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I will collect materials with the founders, Landriesse (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Make sure you find sources that meet WP:RS and WP:NCORP. BD2412T 14:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, we'll do. Would the page Manugistics be an example showing the requested improvements? Landriesse (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the sourcing for that one is rather awful, and I have therefore nominated the article for deletion. A better model would be something like Abacus Data Systems. BD2412T 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, How are you ?
They banned me from editing and even in discussion they ignore your words
I hope you restore this page
Why this injustice that they are doing on me!? Wikipedia is not property of anyone
This is a shame for them
No Name Any More (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
You have abused my trust and violated Wikipedia's terms of service, and I have blocked you for it. BD2412T 14:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if you are an expert on geography and / or navboxes. Though as an an respected admin and colleague of some interested projects I welcome more opinions on professional editors here if you don't mind. On a personal note I also thank you for for all the adaptation of superhero work. Finally one on Hugh's Logan I see. Nice! Jhenderson777 18:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I have commented in the discussion. BD2412T 04:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Why did you delete the page for Wissam Al Mana? He's one of the wealthiest businessmen in the Middle East who was married to Janet Jackson. Wikipro43245 (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wissam Al Mana. 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. Wikipro43245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, I have commented there in favor of refunding to draft, given the circumstances. BD2412T 17:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
There are no secondary sources in the article, and no immediate indication that secondary sources are available. The subject, as such, does not meet the GNG no matter how many "keep" votes there are. Thus, the only plausible outcome other than deletion, for which there is, as you point out, an absence of consensus, is to move the article to draft space until such time as sources develop or are located. Of course, I could go through the motions of closing the discussion as delete and then self-refunding to draft, or closing it as keep and then speedying it to draft, but that would merely be an exercise in bureaucracy. BD2412T 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
So your reasoning for ignoring consensus is that you could just go through the motions and then ignore consensus anyway? – bradv🍁 02:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being less than charitable. But this is not the job of the closer – if this is how you felt about the article you would have been better off as a participant in the discussion rather than a closer. I'll take it to DRV to get more input. – bradv🍁 02:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Closing discussions is not an exercise in counting heads, but in weighing policy-based arguments, of which none were valid here. Yes, editors nakedly invoked the GNG, and stated that references in the article sufficed, but this is objectively untrue since there are clearly no secondary sources in the article. BD2412T 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tim Smith (DJ). 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. – bradv🍁 02:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I have commented there. BD2412T 17:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
You might want this in your watchlist. Some editors feel it belongs, others don't. A possible discussion might arise in it. Anyways I reverted to it back as an article because I think it has potential. Jhenderson777 11:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at Susan Eisenhower's bio because there was a question about her children. According to the sources, she does have three daughters but only one is listed in the family tree. Two additional names were added to the infobox of a previous revision of the page but I can not verify them. I'm not sure how to edit a family tree...is there a way to include 2 additional children without being able to confirm their names or dates of birth? LizRead!Talk! 18:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the template formatting to answer that question. However, the listing need not be exhaustive, and this is not urgent to deal with. BD2412T 18:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
out of curiosity, why was this created? Starzoner (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
See the above section. There's a bot that goes around removing categories from drafts, and until that bot can be taught to ignore the new category for drafts moved from mainspace, a workaround is needed to keep it on the page. BD2412T 03:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your closure statement here. Why mention NSEASONS at all - it's clearly not met. And of course, if it fails NSEASONS and passes GNG, it must be kept. Also, I don't know why you mention "locally reported", as I added national references. How is the Guardian article local? It's an in-depth, detailed, independent, secondary source. As is the FourFourTwo one. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
There is nonetheless a consensus that this is not an independently notable subject. It is quite adequately addressed in the article to which this title now redirects. If you would like to expand that section, I'll be glad to restore the deleted content to your userspace. BD2412T 01:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I've got too many projects on the go now ... someone can just get it out of the edit history. Wait ... why delete the edit history? And why do you talk about locally reported, when that was absolutely not the case? Nfitz (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
"Locally" is relative. I see nothing of substance about this topic outside the UK. BD2412T 01:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Outside the UK? I'm flabbergasted ... some of the sources are from a different nation! And the Guardian is a national paper! Apparently to post here, I have to agree to sort out things here ... but how do I not go to DRV on this? FourFourTwo is on newstands across the planet! Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
FourFourTwo is published in the UK. If you'd like, I can modify the close and remove "locally reported", but that won't affect the consensus for deletion. BD2412T 02:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
That aside, it's still a bizarre definition of local. You'd say a New York Times article about an event in Boston because is local? Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Very well, I will strike the comment. BD2412T 03:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
But that takes away my aghast ammo at RFD. I'm still surprised by the comment about it being sparsely sourced ... particularly given the final AFD exchange, when I said I'd tried to avoid WP:REFBOMBING it with sources from national papers ... and the recommendation that I do so ... which I had no time to do before the AFD was closed. Quite frankly, I thought there was clear GNG, and I would have added more sources if I thought there were questions ... and I've had problems editing lately with an overly broad bizarre IP block, that made it difficult to edit in a timely fashion. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was open for approximately 20 days. My offer to restore the deleted content to your userspace stands. Sleep on it, if you'd like. BD2412T 03:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the edit history? Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
There was a consensus for deletion in the discussion, and that is how it is generally carried out. I have twice offered to restore the content (which would include restoring the edit history) to your userspace. BD2412T 19:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I wasn't trying to edit war. My only issue was that guidelines on BRD and consensus were not being followed. I am more of a process person than a POV-pusher. I really don't care what is ultimately decided for the page as long as it is NPOV. My only issue was the process not being followed which gets my blood boiling at times. So.......sorry about that. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@CNMall41: No worries, I am familiar with your proclivities for sticking to the process and contesting POV editing (even where the other party doesn't realize that their views constitute a POV). This is a very interesting topic. Looking deeper into the field generally, there are actually very similar disputes with respect to many, if not most, paintings attributed to Leonardo–theSalvator Mundi, La Bella Principessa, La Scapigliata, and the Madonna Litta all have similar sets of experts advocating for one side or the other, and they all come laden with accusations of shady motives and biased assessments. There are even plenty of theories that the Mona Lisa in the Louvre is not really by Leonardo. Of course, many of the same experts are involved in evaluating all of these, and their opinions are rather scattershot when it comes to agreeing on any contested point. BD2412T 17:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Charles B. Parkhill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Perfect, thanks. BD2412T 19:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately failed to find any significant opinions which is always desirable (more in the papers about his holidays) but good enough - leaving just one.... Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I already moved that last one to mainspace, although it is still stubby. BD2412T 19:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think you misread the consensus and would encourage you to relist rather than close as the quality of the keep votes is poor, the sources were shown to be insufficient for verification and this has not been adequately rebutted, the sources were largely clones of Global Times story which is considered to be unreliable as a source for factual claims and none of the sources are reliable for medical purposes, this leaves the article with no legitimate sources for any claims. The keep !votes do not adequately explain why MEDRS should be suspended. Wikipedia's coronavirus article followed the World Health Organisation's article and would be the norm for an outbreak, the keep votes do not demonstrate the sources are reliable. And indeed another user has now realised most were actually just clone stories. PainProf (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I would dispute that an outbreak exists in this case. The original NEJM paper which is not clear about whether its the same disease describes a tick virus with an annual incidence, to call it an outbreak is standard tabloid bait, in each of those cases undeniable MEDRS sources do exist as the outbreaks were confirmed by the Centres for disease control, here we have no corresponding notification by the Chinese CDC, its most likely to be routine tick related illness. Instead it is entirely based on the Global times article, an outlet renowned for virus conspiracy theories and inaccurate reporting. PainProf (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
If the issue is that the existence of an outbreak is disputed, that doesn't undo the fact that an outbreak was reported, and the report was disseminated to some degree. The solution, which seems to already be suggested in the AfD, is to fix the content of the article, and possibly rename it to something like Alleged 2020 SFTS virus outbreak. BD2412T 01:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Its unclear what content could be included, I don't consider any of those sources independent from the Global Times, the articles are identical. Its just churnalism so a misrepresentation of multiple sources when only one exists. This isn't something that can be fixed, and this makes it seem as if there is still not a consensus, but I'd encourage you to vote if you decide to relist as it does seem you had an opinion influencing the closing. PainProf (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, the close reflects the consensus, and will not be relisted. There are a number of ways that the alleged deficiencies can be addressed. You could, for example, propose to merge this content somewhere relevant where it would be better presented in context. You accusation of bias on my part is incorrect, but noted. BD2412T 01:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Not bias, I wouldn't like that characterisation, this is more based on your "This happens to be within my bailiwick—it has never been suggested to me" which could suggest you held a pre-conceived idea. Alas, there is nowhere to merge to, I'm not convinced of any part of the reporting given, they can't agree on the virus name, they misname the virus multiple times, and no reliable source allows us to claim its SFTS virus (in which case I would merge there). In contrast to the other cases, reliable sources such as the CDC were available to describe molecular testing and determination of the virus. We'll agree to differ on this matter though. I suspect another nomination in two months might be more successful. PainProf (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
That may be the best course of action. BD2412T 01:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is considered malfunctioning, but I noticed your bot seems to be doing tasks that give itself more work to do. See Draft:Exist for Love (I might have moved or deleted it by the time you read this): BD2412bot added the "drafts moved from mainspace" category to the page, then a few hours later replaced that category with a template to do the same thing, then a day later dated the template. That could all be done in one edit, couldn't it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
It was a novel situation. I created the new category for sorting purposes, and added it. Afterwards I found that there is another bot that goes around removing categories from drafts, so I changed the category to a template importing the category to avoid this removal. Another editor then helpfully added a parameter to subdivide the new category by month, so I added the new parameter to the now-existing templates. BD2412T 15:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Since the categorization scheme has just been established, the important thing is to get everything into a category at all. Perhaps it would be more accurate if the August 2020 category said "by August 2020" rather than "in August 2020", but the point is to establish a baseline at all. The important thing is that months for future moves will be correct going forward. If someone else wants to parse the August list to capture earlier draftifications, I certainly won't object to that. As for the bot, I could accomplish exactly the same thing with AWB manually, but that would lead to a rather gratuitous edit count. BD2412T 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I think there's still value in getting the dates right, as it helps people to identify which of these drafts are about to become G13-eligible, and to organize review. To that end i've filed a BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SDZeroBot_5. Cheers, SD0001 (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi I saw that you !voted delete for the above article. I have since then improved the article and added a considerable number of sources but I'm not 100% sure it passes now. I wondered if you could have a look and tell me if the changes are sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I do hope that this can get a follow-up at COIN. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Right now I am in the mode of preserving evidence so that the suspects can't later cover their tracks. I'll email you. BD2412T 21:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Sent, so we're on the same page. BD2412T 21:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you what the current status is surrounding articles using the term European-American versus white or caucasian. I've noticed the use of this unusual term occurring in more and more articles and other places. See latest search results that show over 4,000 hits.
I believe the issues raised in that discussion remain valid. The U.S. Census continues to use "White" and does not use "European American" (by contrast it uses "Black or African American"); "White" and "Caucasian" remain the terms predominately used in scholarship on race in America. This is probably an issue to take up at a broader forum, perhaps with the WP:MOS. BD2412T 03:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Frank Doster, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I notice Superman (Salkind films) is getting an edit war and I think an admin needs to intervene with the conflict. Jhenderson777 21:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
To send the sandbox article to review for approval, or can you simply move it into namespace? AtsmeTalk📧 03:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd say it's 100% ready for namespace, but it probably wouldn't get deleted once there, so I'll go ahead and move it. I can peck at it a bit more in a few days. BD2412T 03:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I got sidetracked with another article I created and a lead-fix request but hope to add more content tomorrow. Thank you for your amazing help!! It's always a pleasure - AtsmeTalk📧 03:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph Academy (Adrian, Michigan) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I have responded there. BD2412T 18:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
BD2412 I'm very sorry I posted this on the wrong page. I thought I was here [2] and didn't know I had published. (too many tabs :) // Timothy :: talk 18:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not seeing anything that appears to be errantly posted. BD2412T 18:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
hi,
I know you have a bot so I was wondering if you could use your bot to do so. Basically, I have several thousand pages in my subpages that are dedicated to plants. I was wondering it can be used to change [[Category: to [[:Category: and add a talk page with {{WikiProject Plants}} on them. The second part is whatever but the first is requested. Its mostly to avoid flooding recent changes and polluting categories. Thanks. Starzoner (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a list of these? BD2412T 12:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm doing a trial run for seating out the categories. I don't know if I can create the talk pages, but I'll give that one a try later. BD2412T 21:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
For example, I have a ton of Allium page drafts in my userspace, such as User:Starzoner/Allium asarense. Like, if you search in AWB’s prefix index search, yu would be able to find them. I am hoping these pages can have their corresponding talk pages created in bulk. I know its a lot of work to do and a lot to take care of, and lot to do, so feel free to completely ignore and say “no”.
I believe I was able to do the category seating-out task without great difficulty. I should be able to create the talk pages as well. BD2412T 18:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Starzoner:, I believe the task is now done. Please check my work. Cheers! BD2412T 14:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
wow, you are an MVP. :D. One more question thought, according to User talk:Starzoner#Some things to update in species articles, someone said the talk page should be {{WikiProject Plants|class=stub|importance=low|needs-image=yes}}. Is that a possibility? Starzoner (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I suppose. Give me another day to set it up. BD2412T 20:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Starzoner:, I believe that task is also now done. Cheers! BD2412T 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I know Ignore All Rules approaches aren't necessarily great when it comes to admin actions, but credit for basically realizing this move discussion was going to rot on the backlog for a decade without some sort of executive decision.--Yaksar(let's chat) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad responses haven't gone the other way. BD2412T 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I feel like your close being the opposite from your !vote has you covered there, but I should know by now to never underestimate the human capability to get angry about things...--Yaksar(let's chat) 22:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. Great work finishing what I started this cruel summer! — Smjg (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it was my pleasure! BD2412T 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I think this version (but use tables instead of raw lists at the bottom) makes a much better article for the pedia than Timothy Drury. What do you think? AtsmeTalk📧 21:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, everything needs to be cited. Conceptually it would be an improvement. BD2412T 21:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It all begins at conception. The birth certificate comes later. AtsmeTalk📧 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you going to nominate Eric Barry Wilfred Chappelow for GA? Suggestion before you do - shorten the article name to Eric Chappelow instead of that name being the redirect - or you could use Eric Chappelow (poet). As it is now, it's too long a name for Alexa or Siri to find. Oh, and check your email. AtsmeTalk📧 22:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I was going to sit on it for a few days before going forward with any process, but there is certainly reason enough to rename it. Plenty of sources use "Eric Chappelow". There is no need for a disambiguator, as there do not appear to be any other notable person by this name. I'll move it now. BD2412T 22:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Gosh I feel so stupid. Was making an ars nova composers category and accidentally made it Category:Arts nova composers instead of "Ars nova composers" – could you please correct the spelling? Thanks... Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Done, though any editor can rename a category, I believe. BD2412T 15:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m fairly certain I couldn’t, although looking closer it looks like I could have just put it up for speedy renaming. In any case, thanks for the help - Aza24 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether category removes require a special permission - perhaps they do. BD2412T 16:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
William D. Jochems, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
