I appreciate the nod, though it was little more than a gnoming edit. However, I'll take it as symbolic of all the gnoming edits. Thanks! BD2412T 23:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
George H. Brown Jr., 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.
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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk! 01:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this was created in error, thanks for catching that. BD2412T 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Saw this from 2018. In it it states the the article creation has been salted. However, during NPP, came across PayTabs. Which again is very weakly sourced. Don't know if this is G4 material or not. Thoughts? Onel5969TT me 15:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Speedily moved to draft. Clearly the creator has sat an unused account for years so they can evade extended-confirmed protections, so I have locked the page again with admin protections. BD2412T 16:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Wasn't sure exactly what to do with that one. Onel5969TT me 16:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to request something. Ot might be a bit offensive.
Can you please remove the sockpuppet comment in the Thor talk page.
Clearly I have been unblocked and as you have written that comment, can't you please remove it?? Lord kai07 (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
No, we do not edit talk page comments after the fact. I have already explained that eventually this will be archived. In the meantime, you are merely drawing attention to that fact that you did engage in sockpuppetry in an attempt to get your way in a discussion. BD2412T 17:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about the three instances where I clicked too fast before double-checking. Thanks for catching that! InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
No worries, though nothing really needed to be fixed. BD2412T 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
there's an anonymous IP user who has been editing the ExcelAire page with heavily biased information, including possibly defaming the pilots. I've reverted it but you can see it on the version history Hunter b1107 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be a very targeted problem, so I have blocked that IP from editing that article for one month. We will see if the misconduct persists thereafter. BD2412T 17:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, you called it, they didn't approve Draft: Reya Sunshine due to the lack of mainstream sources, although I did add a couple more after hearing from you. I'll spend some more time trying to dig up some more, and I noticed that the vast majority of mainstream sources you were able to get for the Adriana Chechik article were after she broke her back - I guess that was good enough? I'll spend some more time with this draft, but would you recommend moving it to the main space myself, or submitting it for review again after I do so? I'm new here, so I don't want to rock the boat unnecessarily - thanks! Ajax0714 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
If you move it yourself after having been denied at AFC, it will probably fairly quickly end in deletion of the article altogether. Chechik did have some more in-depth mainstream sources prior to her injury, though neither those nor the injury alone would have sufficed to support the article. It is possible that this subject may never reach that level of notability, but see what develops from the AVN hosting gig. BD2412T 22:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Got it - appreciate the response!!! Ajax0714 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the additional source to the Reya Sunshine draft - I tried to add a few more myself, and I also read that an official page "can" serve as a reliable source - have you ever been able to judge the veracity of that statement? Ajax0714 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
It would never serve as a source for evaluating notability, though. It could perhaps be used to support noncontroversial biographical points. BD2412T 23:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Got it - I'm thinking the primary notability argument in this one is how someone who's essentially been self-produced and has never worked for a major studio still achieved enough recognition to host the AVN awards - I guess we'll see what kind of mainstream sources that brings in the next few weeks? Ajax0714 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, many thanks! BD2412T 00:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
A company I worked for is plagiarizing Wikipedia[edit]
The company has a training manual which that has multiple sections copied from Wikipedia. There are no references to the material coming from Wikipedia or attributed to any of the authors of the Wikipedia entry.
How can I pass along the information and make sure Wikipedia is correctly listed as the source? 174.27.219.114 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
If this is just in an internal training manual (not being sold commercially), I'm not sure there is anything actionable on Wikipedia's part. BD2412T 04:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, you kindly added a protection template to this page on 3 September, it was removed on 3 December, and - lo and behold - on 22 December the anti-consensus position was added back in. Someone manually reverted it, but is it worth further protection?
I wonder if there is a way to blacklist the word "Karat" from being added to the page. BD2412T 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
In theory, an edit filter could do the job, but it would have the overhead of running on every page, even if all of its code is within a "IF page title =..." block. I don't know whether ClueBot or similar could easily be programmed to revert page-specific unwelcome additions. Certes (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Her Burn 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 until the discussion has finished.
I have replied in the discussion. The idea that an album on multiple "most anticipated album lists" from reliable sources will fail notability is not very well-taken. BD2412T 01:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Greetings - I'm still working on my Draft: Reya Sunshine (and definitely not submitting until any post-AVN coverage has a chance to happen), but I've been cruising through some of the deletion discussions on porn bios. It seems to me that WP:BASIC and WP:ENT are often mentioned in the same breath by many editors, but they also seem like different standards. WP:BASIC seems harder to achieve, but once accomplished, conveys "presumed" notability. WP:ENT, however, seems much more achievable in comparison:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3)
WP:ENT doesn't seem to require "significant coverage" the way WP:BASIC does, it just seems that whatever sources conveyed the information in 1. and 2. of WP:ENT would have to be reliable. For example, for the AfD of Emily Willis, it seems like an argument could have been made that she met WP:ENT for her participation in multiple films that received AVN or XBiz awards (granted, this probably would have had to be in some "best film"- style category. I'm not trying to re-litigate that action or anything, but have you ever witnessed a decision that was along the lines of "doesn't meet WP:BASIC, but meets WP:ENT due to X, Y, and Z? Ajax0714 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The products of the industry as a whole are generally considered non-notable. We have tens of thousands of articles on films, and only a handful on pornographic films. BD2412T 01:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Got it - how about the second line of WP:ENT, 'Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment,' have you ever seen a porn bio use that to justify notability? Ajax0714 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the link!! Ajax0714 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate you adding the additional source to Draft: Reya Sunshine! If you've got the time, have you ever had any experience with sources like "Live play, live sex: The parallel labors of video game live streaming and webcam modeling" or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrNuRDAArU0 before? They're not like most articles, but both look like significant coverage to me (as well as secondary, independent, and reliable). The YT mini-documentary is a 15-minute vid of which the most relevant parts are from 4:32-9:00, and I'm not sure if you'll be able to see anything of the academic article beyond the abstract, but the subject's YT vid formed a major part of the research that was conducted by author. Ajax0714 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Sourcing appears to be focused on the trailer and upcoming movies promotional tour materials, interviews.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amie Donald and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, BD2412!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't sure of this myself, that's why I submitted rather than just moving it over. Cheers! BD2412T 22:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Just came here because was reviewing my AfCs and realized you were the editor. I going to ask if I missed something in the references, but your response shows AfC working (or at least I didn't break this one) Slywriter (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's an edge case. The LA Times reference goes somewhat more into the subject and her history/contributions to the film than the others, but it is still fairly weak. However, I can't imagine this will remain the case for long, given the buzz around the film. Cheers! BD2412T 04:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. I've added to it and published it. Thanks for starting the draft! Schwede66 11:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
MalnadachBot Task 13 has made tons of progress after 6 months continuous run at 25 edits per minute. At 6.5 million edits till now, this has been way above my initial estimate of 2 million pages. This task has shot the bot past the 10 million edits mark, making it the first account to reach this milestone. Blanking non-blocked IPv4 talkpages older than 5 years is mostly done. Much of the remaining ones are IPv6 which are harder to filter blocked ones out, so will be slower. Per query/67404 there are still 551k inactive talkpages of inactive IPs, including IPs which are currently blocked. I guess at least 350k of them will be blanked by the time IPv6 is done. Then it will be matter of periodic runs to cleanup newer ones. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
That is quite a remarkable and historical feat! BD2412T 17:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Question: What's the proper procedure for a "blank" AfD nom, like this one?... FTR, I don't believe this new editor is operating in good faith (or, at the least, is clueless) – Julianna Guill is an occasional vandal target, and I get the feeling that this is another one of these. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
In this situation, I would just finish the nomination (basically create the appropriate template with the note that "an editor has placed an AfD tag on this article without providing a reason"). It will probably be WP:SNOW kept within a few days, after which a renomination would be considered disruptive. BD2412T 02:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I saw you did an article on mass editing. I was asked to look into a mass editing situation from a friend who runs a music website. The company is going through a domain shortening / change on their website. Basically it is going from abc123.com => abc.com.. They have something like 4,000 pages on wikipedia where they are referenced and they are trying to avoid having all those references going bad. Is there a way to mass edit every url to find+replace each reference with the new updated shorter domain? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@ScienceAdvisor: If it is a matter of substituting one string of characters for another in a reasonably easy to identify set of articles, then that is no problem at all. What is the change? BD2412T 00:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
ConsequenceofSound.net and ConsequenceOfSound.net, all of their links need to be shortened to Consequence.net but with the same url ending. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The site consequenceofsound.net is moving everything to consequence.net. Same urls, just need to shorted the domain on all the articles that use this site as a reference. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Is moving, as in, the move has not been undertaken yet? BD2412T 00:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Moved, the links are active on the new website, they just haven't deactivated the old links yet. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ScienceAdvisor: I have updated a few hundred of these, which is all that were returned by either a Google search or a Wiki text search in the reader-facing spaces. BD2412T 03:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help. I was noticing them disappearing as I was going through them. If you search "ConsequenceOfSound.net" exactly on wikipedia it will give you a link where you receive 4751 results. Many of the pages I am checking through source code and they still have urls that say consequenceofsound.net in the URLs. Is there a way to check those?ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Take for example this page, Cat Stevens. It doesn't show anything from the viewer side but if you check the source code there are still 3 instances of the old site url. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
If I google wikipedia and use the see results from wikipedia search bar.. then type in consequenceofsound.net .. it comes back with 23,600 results still. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I see that I am getting a different set of returns each time I conduct a new search after fixing a set. This may take some time. Any idea how much we have? BD2412T 04:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't dare to presume. I do appreciate your help though. Thank you very much! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Can we pause for a second.. I noticed your editing might be causing some 404 errors by inserting a date into the url. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I took a look and it doesnt appear to have anything to do with you.. I apologize.. Thank you so much for your help. The links I saw was broken before it was edited. I looked at the changes. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ScienceAdvisor: Thanks. An error of that sort should not be possible, as AWB is a dumb instrument, and can only substitute consequence.net for consequenceofsound.net. However, I also have general fixes turned on (an AWB background protocol which fixes certain common errors on every page touched). I will turn it off for now. BD2412T 18:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but it wouldnt insert data into the urls. I checked the history and the changes show the url wasnt touched which means it was broken before the page was edited. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Ignore me if this problem is already in hand, but the bots at Wikipedia:URLREQ may be helpful. Certes (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi BD2412 and @ScienceAdvisor: I appreciate the efforts you have taken to cleanup many of these errors. However, I would like to add that a lot these ConsequenceofSound.net citations actually need direct archive links because the new Consequence website has scrubbed the old review ratings, which are very very often precisely what is being cited on these pages that you are updating. Thanks. Οἶδα (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I tested a few of these and the archive links are still working links. Are you saying that the archive content is different once the link is changed? BD2412T 19:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
It shouldnt be. it should be the same website, just at a different url.. There might be an updated logo or some small cosmetic changes but the content and urls should be identical. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I seem to be mistaken. There was a problem before where the ratings from ConsequenceofSound.net were not transferred over to Consequence.net (which no longer assigns ratings to their reviews). I see now that they do display the old ratings in a strange gradient font. Sorry about that! Carry on with the great work! Οἶδα (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@BD2412 Seriously, thank you so much for helping. Are you using google search results from wikipedia to find the additional edits? Are we making a dent? Thank you!!! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
At this point I do think we have a substantial portion of these done. I am not finding additional URLs containing the string. BD2412T 02:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I am using google and I am only seeing links in foreign language wikipedias. Thanks for your help. If I come across another way to search for them, I may give you a shout.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Which ones? I can fix these in some other languages. BD2412T 03:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I googled this exactly and I am still seeing quite a few.. - "consequenceofsound.net" site:wikipedia.org .. without the quotes I still see 19,600 results. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
with the quotes, i still see 1300 or so but some are talk pages. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Some of these will be from the "publisher=" parameter of the citation template, identifying the source but not linking to it. BD2412T 03:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, not worried about simple text, just urls. Are they all like that? ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no particular uniformity to how editors write the name of a source. Actually, it could also be in a "website=" parameter, which is not the same as the URL. BD2412T 03:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with the editing. If I can buy you a cup of starbucks or lunch at chipolte lmk! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If you're in my area, certainly. BD2412T 19:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I was just going to email you a gift card ... I have another question.. I created a page in an old redirect and the page is fine but when I search the name in the wiki search bar the redirect page still appears instead of the actual page.. Any ideas?ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I just do a search for the name followed by a dash. BD2412T 03:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, sort of, for your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_proposed_national_monuments_of_the_United_States. IMO, you should have judged it as "Keep" rather than "no consensus to delete". You stated "After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and a reasonable basis in policy for keeping a list of proposals where the proposals themselves are or can potentially be sourced", and I think that is exactly correct reasoning for "Keep".
Your further comment "I would further suggest moving everything that is in fact unsourced or self-sourced to the talk page for individual examination and discussion", is sensible and good.
I don't mean to be complaining, and I am certainly not motivated to appeal the decision ( wp:DRV?), I am just meaning this as feedback to you that I read your own assessment differently. Thanks, anyhow, for contributing by closing the discussion which had run its course. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I have reviewed the discussion and I continue to believe that my close was correct. There were multiple participants on both sides of the question making policy-based arguments. Both the numbers and the strength of arguments favored keeping the article, but there was not a clear consensus established for it. That said, I think that if this article if improved along the lines suggested, there will not be further thought of deleting it. BD2412T 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, if you check your deleted contributions, I think your AWB run might be parsing whatever you're using to create the redirects wrong. It's adding the first name twice. Also Pax Brittanica, pinging you since this is why its a good idea to let people know you've tagged something for deletion. If there is a problem, it can be solved. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: It's a two step process. The first step creates the redirect with a "subst:PAGENAME" and the second step removes the extra portion of the name. BD2412T 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. Anyway, they're being tagged for speedy deletion so wanted to let you know. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
No worries, this is now resolved. BD2412T 23:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Fair enough. I'll have to hold up my hands here, I am a tad on the green side. I'll make sure to do this properly next time 👍 Pax Brittanica (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I have now added references to the article showing use of "Prickilie Bush" as a longstanding alternative title to the song. BD2412T 17:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand this edit (and several others like it). You've changed Poles to Polish people, which redirects back to Poles. What am I missing? DuncanHill (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: Per Talk:Poles#Requested move 2 February 2023, by this time tomorrow (if it isn't WP:SNOW closed early) Poles will be a disambiguation link and the article currently at that title will be at Polish people. It is better to fix the links preemptively, rather than give the regular disambiguators heart attacks when they suddenly see a new list of 5,000+ pending fixes. BD2412T 03:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Update: Per discussion, Poles is now a disambiguation redirect. BD2412T 19:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Is there a current version of the page? 108.36.229.19 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
We've lost a lot of good tools over time. I have removed this one from my user page. I do not know of a substitute. BD2412T 04:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Did the tool stop working? How do you lose a working tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.229.19 (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Many tools are created and maintained by specific editors; when those editors leave, the coding for the tool may fall out of date with broader changes to the coding of the website. BD2412T 15:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I followed your link to
[[quarry:query/69603]
The query works as I imagined the deleted tool would work.
I had no idea about Quarry. Maybe the deletion of the old tool is no loss. If you can issue repeatable SQL queries I do not think you need a bunch of special-
purpose tools that query Wikipedia tables under the covers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.229.19 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not possible to run other editors' queries directly within Quarry. I've created User:Certes/Reports/Large redirect pages, which has a link to re-run the query on demand. It just ran and shows the current status. The reduction from Josh's sandbox is mainly because it now filters out redirects which are large due to numerous categories, such as Constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization. The query occupies the SQL server for about seven minutes and the output doesn't change much, so please don't re-run it too often. Certes (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for all your hard work cleaning up my draft (now mainspace article) Kevin M. Scott; I appreciate your efforts and kind input on talk pages! BhamBoi (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
My pleasure! BD2412T 19:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 18:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello there. I nominated Draft:Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter for speedy deletion because it clearly violates WP:BLP (the death of a living person is well documented in the policy and it applies to the Draft namespace amongst the others), which was speedily deleted at first, but then noticed that you've reverted it back by adding the note on the top. To be frank, we never prepare for someone's death in the Draft namespace, which is aimed at improving articles on factual topics that temporarily lack quality to survive in the main namespace. If you really want to develop an article on an anticipated event in advance, it's far more advisable to user your own user space (something like User:BD2412/Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter would work better). Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kiril Simeonovski: I must disagree with the above premise. For example, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II was created (by User:Thriley) as a draft prior to the death of the subject, but after it was reported that death was expected imminently. It is a routine practice of news sources to prepare reporting on the death of such figures in advance, and there is no ethical breach or concern about violating the rights of individuals in so doing. Quite frankly, it is highly unusual to have a case at all where there is a subject of such stature that they definitively will have a separate Wikipedia article on their death and state funeral, and where we know in advance that they will die relatively soon. In the case of Carter, he has announced that he has entered hospice care, which is medically defined as meaning that death is certain within six months, and which typically means death will occur within weeks. There are doubtless other notable figures who entered hospice care without making it known to the public, but Carter has chosen to do so. The draft therefore belongs in draftspace until then, so that all editors feel free to add to it as further details for funeral plans become available. If there is disagreement on this point, then a deletion discussion is required, as no applicable speedy deletion criteria has been identified. BD2412T 17:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. I've learned you have blanked the talk page of IP 83.223.124.17 according to Wikipedia guidelines. I can see you're an administrator. Could I ask you to delete this page revision? May be this "gentleman" had (or has) a poor opinion of me, he has the right to think so (talk is cheap after all :), but I guess his remarks are "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" to any Wikipedia user or editor, then WP:CRD is applicable here. Thanks in advance. Darius (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree, and have redacted accordingly. BD2412T 02:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you!Darius (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I must kindly ask that if you are undeleting a page (be it for a REFUND or the like) to please undelete all of the most recent contributions, even if they are hidden per RD1. Doing so for pages such as Draft:Phil Greene puts me as the page creator, which is wrong and removes the attribution from the original page creator (plus, it means that I receive all of the G13-type notifications for deletion, which is a minor annoyance but also unhelpful for the original creator). Just to clarify, of course, if the page was deleted multiple times then the old versions should stay deleted, I was referring basically to the most recent page creation. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Primefac: Frankly it had not occured to me to restore the copyvio history at all, but I see that it works the way it was done thereafter. Cheers! BD2412T 18:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I hope you are well. I'll spare you the details but because of a combination of factors, we had over 1,000 G13 eligible expiring drafts over the past day (Feb. 28th-March 1st). On a regular day, these days, there are typically between 150-225 expiring drafts/day so this was almost a week's worth of G13s deleted over a little more than 24 hours. I see you are the admin who is most recently active on this noticeboard so I just wanted to give you a head's up that there might be an accompanying surge of refund requests.
I realize that some editors who edit infrequently come back weeks or months (or years?) after a draft has been deleted to ask for a page restoration but for our regularly editing users, it might be a busy few days at REFUND. A possible surge is probably also impacted by the fact that previously, not all admins/editors who handled G13 taggings and deletions posted talk page notices about them but now all page creators are receiving them and being given a link to REFUND.
I wasn't sure where to post this message but I see you are active at REFUND so, here's notice! Have a good week. LizRead!Talk! 17:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: I will be around. Cheers! BD2412T 18:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to point out that with respect to Draft:Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter which I deleted, you undeleted the draft despite being involved. Would you wish to reverse your administrative action? I can surely suggest taking it to the noticeboard post your involved action being reverted. Thank you. Lourdes 08:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Lourdes: The deletion request was out-of-process, since no speedy deletion criteria was identified (or applicable to such a draft); it was basically a WP:BOLD action, which is therefore subject to reversion by any editor, involved or not. BD2412T 13:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I have opened up an Arbcom request on your involved action here. Thank you, Lourdes 09:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This appears to have resolved itself. I would frankly counsel against the appearance of further forum shopping with respect to this dispute. BD2412T 17:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Other editors too have given advice on similar lines BD. Don't intend taking this to AN. Hopefully this will remain a point of learning reference for you, and me. See you around. Warmly, Lourdes 05:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@Lourdes: I do appreciate that. I felt insulted that the draft was deleted without any effort having been made by the deletion nominator to discuss the matter until well after the fact. I know that was not your intent. I am always happy to discuss alternatives to deletion in service to the readers. Cheers! BD2412T 05:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi BD, I understand. Your work around is significantly appreciated and it was not my intention to have the deletion result in disrespect or a feeling of insult. My apologies as that's what has happened here. Look forward to more productive interactions with you in the future. Have a good evening, Lourdes 05:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm being notified of this. I didn't create the redirect, I merely retargeted it away from the disambiguation page to the article indicated there. BD2412T 13:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Just a courtesy. (I didn't make the nomination.) The creator is inactive and you may be a "main contributor" who might have more insight. Politrukki (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour 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 until the discussion has finished.
Do note that this is a procedural nomination from RfD, and I do not care as to the deletion of the article. Notifying as a courtesy. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Please remember to delete the entries at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss/C and similar lists when you fix them. It's very frustrating to click on dozens of pages to discover that you've already fixed them. Thanks.
@Ira Leviton: I have a protocol for fixing certain common errors that coincides with, but is independent of, the Typo Team/moss project. BD2412T 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were doing it from Moss.. (Maybe you used to?) Then just ignore my comment. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I do work on Moss at times, but I also pull my own data sets for punctuation spacing errors that are also addressed by Moss. However, in those sets, I am not also addressing general spelling errors. BD2412T 15:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tracy Tutor, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This was a redirect to the mainspace page that was blanked by a vandal. I have reverted the vandalism. BD2412T 20:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! As part of my university curriculum, I've contributed to the banking lobby wiki article which I believe you've contributed to before. I'm contacting past editors seeking feedback on my contributions, so if you could take a look at it, I would appreciate it. I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for any mistakes in the article. No problem if you cannot take a look, thank you for your previous contributions to the article! Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@Peanutbutterisbad: I would be glad to review your contributions and make recommendations for future directions. Cheers! BD2412T 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Marva Griffin Carter, 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.
Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier. Through the discussion it emerged that the article is actually about an entirely different person, Fred Vehmeier, and it was moved there. I was wondering if you could delete the redirect that was left at John Vehmeier as part of the AfD close. If not, I'll just take it to RfD. Thanks –dlthewave☎ 15:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: In the article text, it states: "In modern sources about the North Dakota football program, he is mistakenly referred to as John Vehmeier". That is reason enough to have a redirect, there being no other subject for whom that name is used. BD2412T 15:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, that makes sense since it's a plausible search term. –dlthewave☎ 16:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I nominated The Blip for GA after doing a lot of work on the page in recent days. Do you want me to add you as a co-nominator since you did a lot of the work early on it looks like? -- ZooBlazertalk 00:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@ZooBlazer: Thanks, I would be honored. Cheers! BD2412T 00:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Added a note to the nomination. Now we wait for a long time... -- ZooBlazertalk 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes we do. Thanks again! BD2412T 00:58, 2 April 2023 (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) 19:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
sorry to bother you again, but this page I had edited and it seemed Gellerman edited the page to copy paste Draft:Migration (2023 film). Crafterstar (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
James B. Stephenson, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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.
Been a while since I've dug one of these out of draft - Just the basics done but I don't have the energy to dig deeper. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
This is excellent work, thanks. BD2412T 18:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Typically, we have between 150-250 drafts that expire every day. As you can see on User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon, on April 18th, we have 629 drafts expiring. But it's not just that we have more drafts expiring that day than is normal. During the 18:00-19:00 UTC hour, we have 420 drafts expiring! During that one hour! And each draft needs to be reviewed by an administrator before deletion. This hour will happen when I'm typically on CSD G13 duty but next Tuesday I'll be at the hospital for my mom's surgery.
When I looked to see how this anomaly could happen, it turns out that you were doing some mass-editing on drafts with AWB. This has happened with other editors doing mass minor edits on drafts using editing tools but they typically amount to a burst of 40-70 drafts expiring during the same minute or two, not over 400. I can't fault what you are doing as you are one of the most prolific editors on the project, doing a lot of good work. But I just request some moderation of mass editing projects, on this scale, on drafts or it can result in these mass deletion episodes. I also question whether the edits you did were absolutely necessary to be done as they didn't affect the content of the drafts but that's not what brought me to your talk page, it was the use of AWB in Draft space. Frequently editors who start drafts, never return to Wikipedia to continue to work on them so your edits are the last edit to the pages and mark the time when they should be deleted.
We have an unwritten rule that we don't delete drafts before they are eligible for deletion just to maintain some consistency among editors and admins working with expiring drafts. But if you are around next Tuesday, it would be great if you could help out with either tagging or deleting some of these drafts. I'll also alert some of the editors who normally help out with tagging expiring drafts. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 03:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: I'll go through them before then. These were drafts User:FloridaArmy has been working on, so I was trying to buy them some extra time. BD2412T 03:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, your help is appreciated. But we still need to go through them all, individually, to see if they are eligible for CSD G13 deletion. You can delay their deletion but if they show up on G13 list, we need to check them unless they are deleted prior to the day of their expiration date. LizRead!Talk! 02:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I generally trust FloridaArmy's selection of topics, and I estimate that he got about a third of the tagged drafts through to mainspace after the previous round of tagging. I will continue to work on them. BD2412T 02:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It looks like you delayed deletion for the handful of drafts I checked. But, as I said, each of these pages still has to be checked tomorrow to see whether or not it is eligible for CSD G13 deletion and this kicks the can down the road and we'll be facing this situation again on April 18, 2024 October 12, 2023.
I guess the point of this whole discussion that I started here on your User talk page is please, please, do not do mass editing with AWB in draft space. AWB results in dozens or hundreds of edits over a few minutes and most drafts get very few edits after they are originally created so situations like this can occur. Even though FloridaArmy is prolific, they often don't get to all of their drafts after they have been restored after a G13 deletion. Since drafts have to be individually reviewed before they are deleted, AWB can lead to a crush of activity for us human reviewers. Thank you for considering my request. LizRead!Talk! 23:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: I should note, then, that I have a list of several hundred of my own drafts that I have created (mostly on state supreme court justices), which I routinely bump using AWB. I intent to keep doing this, although I can do it manually, and absent AWB will do it that way. BD2412T 00:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Sherman Minton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2023 (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) 15:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I want to thank you again for your restoration of the Red Wizard article to draft space, and I hope to be able to get that one back into article space one day. Having just seen the film, I can say that the Harpers have probably just as much of a presence in the film, and I have found some recent sources that cover them: [1][2][3][4][5] That article was deleted at the same AFD by the same now-inactive admin, so would you be willing to do the same restoration of Harpers (Forgotten Realms) and move to draft space? BOZ (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
To keep the discussion on topic, I am raising this point here rather than on the talk page where you made the comment. After filing an SPI that resulted in being closed with no action taken, I noticed that you brought up the same concerns as soon as I made a comment on a talk page asking you for clarification. Could you please clarify what you mean by this sentence in particular: At this juncture, I am not comfortable with either of you editing the text of the article.[6] Are you in fact requesting an Wikipedia:ABAN. If so, on which basis? AncientWalrus (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
From the history I see, there are two accounts pushing their POV with another pushing the opposite. This is the type of editing that makes most editors "not comfortable." I would agree that everyone leave it to more experienced editors who do not have a POV to push. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@AncientWalrus: I am not requesting a topic ban at this time. I am asking that the accounts in question abide by WP:COIEDIT. BD2412T 00:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I am leaning towards requesting it. For some reason, "no action taken" at the SPI has been interpreted as "feel free to engage in same editing pattern." --CNMall41 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I am aware of the relevant policies that were emphasized by @MarioGom when closing: "An additional note before archiving this: Tobeortobebetter, AncientWalrus: please, read WP:SOCKLEGIT and WP:MEAT carefully. Also WP:TAGTEAM" and "So tread carefully, be civil, respect WP:3RR, avoid disruptive behavior, etc.".
Please provide concrete examples for your accusations. If being one of ten thousands of database users is a significant conflict of interest then everything is. Commenting on a talk page discussion asking for clarification is not disruptive. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Being one of thousands is correct. But being the one coming here pushing a POV is another. This is all spelled out in the SPI and evident from your talk page warnings and edit comments on GISAID. Keep in mind that tolerating this continued editing pattern is not a WP:PACT. Do as you will. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I have not asked anyone to abstain from "commenting on a talk page discussion". I have asked SPA editors to abide by WP:COIEDIT, consistent with the claimed COI of having a significant enough conflict to feel compelled to edit anonymously. Given the shroud of mystery assumed here, we have no way of knowing the actual degree of significance of the relationship, but the editors in question certainly seem motivated to invest quite a bit of time and energy into pressing a specific viewpoint with a focus on a specific subject. BD2412T 00:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure being a user of the database poses a COI strong enough to not edit at all, but I guess it's in a grey area. Participating through the talk page would be advisable anyway, especially since there's no consensus about the changes. MarioGom (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Unfortunately, we do not know what specific COI is present here, as the editors have not declared an affiliation, nor do we have any information from which to gauge the truthfullness if such claims. BD2412T 15:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@BD2412 Could you please clarify what you mean by the editors have not declared an affiliation? I have already addressed your question regarding conflict of interest/affiliation in the SPI you filed. The pertinent part of my response was: 4. Why does this not mean I have a conflict of interest? GISAID is the most important database for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza genomes. Every scientist working on these viruses requires access to these genomes for their work. GISAID has tens of thousands of users. Considering this a conflict of interest would be like considering it a COI for registered Wikipedia editors to be editing Wikipedia's Wikipedia article. Neither have I ever worked for GISAID, nor have I got any personal relations with anyone working for GISAID (even in the broadest sense of the word). I am an ordinary user, like ten thousands of other bioinformaticians and virologists. I would appreciate if you raised any remaining concerns in the appropriate forum. Lack of information from which to gauge the truthfulness of such claims must be a common situation at Wikipedia:COIN and I am confident this can be dealt with. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Lack of information from which to gauge the truthfulness of such claims is indeed a common situation at WP:COIN. Usually it is dealt with through a topic ban or a block. I am trying to avoid things coming to that. BD2412T 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
You are correct. That would be like saying I have a COI and cannot edit the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia because I in fact am a user of Wikipedia. Simply being a GISAID user does not create a COI per se. However, based on the admission of using an alternative account, information from the SPI, Help Desk, article talk page, and editing behavior, we have a COI. The question is to what extent. I guess editing behavior can determine that and also determine the next steps as this is getting into WP:TE territory. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion @MarioGom, I'm very happy to talk and get consensus before making potentially controversial changes - this has been my recent behaviour anyways as can be seen quite clearly on the GISAID talk page. If you have any concerns regarding edits/comments/behaviour of mine please feel free to raise them. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I apologise for the intrusion into your time but you seem like you'd be the best person to ask, and also, hello from an old Wikipedian who you may or may not remember and who is trying to become familiar with the ways of 2023 Wikipedia. Anyway, the substance:
On my talk page from 2021 I am told I have lost autopatrolling rights but I can add them if I desire. Is this something I need to concern myself with? Appreciate your time, and your help, and hope life is treating you well. HidingT 10:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This, I believe, is a 'crat question. If you are not autopatrolled, your edits show up on the lengthy list of edits needing to be patrolled. BD2412T 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Ta. Hopefully bump into you somewhere again sooner rather than later. Best wishes, HidingT 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hiding, (I believe) you can restore them yourself or (somewhat better) ask another admin to. It was a mass removal for reasons I don't immediately recall. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee and Hiding: Interesting, I did not realize that was in the toolbox. I have gone ahead and restored this for Hiding. BD2412T 15:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Always something new and exciting to discover. Sometimes I discover things multiple times. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee @BD2412, thank you both kindly! I think I understand what it means now, if not what the reasoning was. HidingT 16:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Tobeortobebetter (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be happy to lend some time on this. The page fills a needed niche for Mount Rushmore links. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn:. I have promoted the draft. Cheers! BD2412T 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks good, nice work! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The most recent scientific research has determined that changes to brain structures correlated with the development of autism can already be detected while the child is still in the womb, well before any vaccines are administered.[1]
Isn't this something that would require a WP:MEDRS source because it's biomedical information? Even if you cited the original paper, it would be a primary source. OR is there something I'm missing here? (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
What would be WP:MEDRS but not a a primary source, then? The London's College study was itself merely confirming a hypothesis developed from previous studies, so there must be WP:MEDRS sources available for the proposition. BD2412T 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@A. B.: The focus of this task is clearing IP pages that have been dormant of activity for 10 to 15 years, though pages with more recent activity are included in some batches. It is not at all a given that the Shared IP tag will remain accurate over such a period of time. It is also worth noting that one goal of this project is to reduce excess incoming links to articles, which includes the articles on institutions linked from such tags. BD2412T 22:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
If the wikilinks are your concern, how about breaking the wikilinks and otherwise leaving the tag as is? Shared IP information for editors leaving warnings and admins setting blocks.
Today, I restored some of the shared IP tags on my watchlist. I don't want to keep doing this.
Most of the IP pages I've restored today are registered to school districts. It's highly unlikely their registered IP ranges will change. Leaving these Spared IP notices in place just saves work for others in the future.
If IP ownership remains a concern for you, could you run a quick whois to confirm change of ownership before deleting?
To "run a quick whois" for tens of thousands of pages is rather impractical. What is the point of having shared IP tags on pages, even if accurate, if the pages have been dormant for many years? By comparison, tens of thousands of IP addresses in those ranges have no IP talk pages at all, and we don't preemptively create them just so that they are correctly tagged with the institution to which they are registered, even if we are certain of it. The difference between one of those pages and a page from which a handful of edits emanated a decade ago is nominal. BD2412T 22:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to run a whois on thousands of pages. Just as you come to a page either leave the shared IP notice in place or run a whois to verify it's changed.
One page, one whois - that is if you really believe ownership of these pages is changing. Which I don't believe. I suggest you don't bother; just leave the tag in place.
Otherwise, why do we even have SharedIP tags? If you think they're bad idea, I recommend the two of us take that to the whole community to decide since they're a well-established, widely-used tool.
This will save others like myself work in the future.
Also, some of these IPs are currently blocked; for example, see User talk:216.56.2.206, which you cleared. I restored the sharedIP tag and noticed the IP was blocked in 2020 as a vandalism-only account for 3 years. In the event someone at that school is trying to figure out why their IP is blocked, it would help to leave the last block notice in place.
Again, perhaps we should take this to the community at large for their consensus on whether we should use sharedIP tags.
Personally, when I was an active admin, I thought they were very useful which was why I added them to any IP page I interacted with. I expect others may feel the same way
Blocked accounts should be excluded from the sets to be cleared, as should any account for which there has been any activity as recently as that. I do try to avoid those. I will substantially slow down work on the task for myself pending further examination of this, but the vast majority of these page clearings are done by a community-approved bot. BD2412T 22:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you just reprogram the bot to leave SharedIP tags in place? You might also be able to get it to avoid blocked accounts. I thought you were making these edits by hand using your own account. --A. B.(talk • contribs • global count) 23:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I am making a number of these by hand, but there is a bot (maybe more than one) that also performs the task. The bot with which I am familiar (User:MalnadachBot) is not mine, however. BD2412T 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
