Just a note -- I had already left in the first hyperlink for the Atomic Energy Commission. Just deleted subsequent ones. Jkgree (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks for the notice - self-reverted. Cheers! BD2412T 19:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Palim.Palim.99: It appears that all of the references currently on the page are either to the website of the award show itself, or to YouTube and other social media or personal webpages. You need to find reliable sources, such as news outlets. BD2412T 18:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out. That's all I could check.
But it's more for sure. The problem is I am in Germany and have no connections to the US Authorities or similar.
None of all the YAA Entries have these advanced sources. Palim.Palim.99 (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If that is the case, then that is a problem with those articles, not a benefit for this one. BD2412T 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Tip: how to display double square brackets in edit summaries uninterpreted[edit]
I noticed this edit of yours at Bryan Garner, where you used the idiosyncratic form '[[B. A.|' in the edit summary, presumably in order to avoid rendering the link and thus hiding the brackets, had you including the matching end brackets. If you want to display double brackets unrendered and uninterpreted, as if enclosed in <nowiki>'s, you can do that by breaking up the double-brackets with a zero-width space character between them. So, code this:
[​[B. A.]​]
in an edit summary (or here) to get this:
[[B. A.]]
And if you want to eat your cake and have it too, then you can do this:
[​[​[[J. D.]]​]​]
to get this in the summary, linked, but with visible brackets:
Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@Mathglot: The edit summaries for disambiguation fixes (or disambiguation-like edits like this one) are automatically generated by AWB; I have nothing to do with that platform's use of an idiosyncratic form. Cheers! BD2412T 00:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I see; good to know. Thanks for that, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Can't help but notice your recent editing activity, where you've been changing links from "Vaccine hesitancy" to an article you created, "Anti-vaccine activism"—often at a rate of several articles per minute. Have you checked the sources of each of those articles to ensure your edits are in line with their cited sources? Because "vaccine hesitancy" and "anti-vaccine activism" are two very different things. Are Novak Djokovic and Robert De Niro proven "activists" of any kind? You should be extremely careful when editing the articles of BLPs, especially when dealing with a topic so controversial. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: Yes, the link fixes are contextually correct: "Djokovic stated he does not associate with the wider anti-vax movement"; "De Niro has stated that he is not anti-vaccination, but does question their efficacy". There is no "vaccine hesitancy" movement, and questioning the efficacy of vaccination is functionally the definition of being vaccine hesitant. Both subjects are stating that they are not involved in anti-vaccine activism, despite their personal hesitancy. BD2412T 01:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to Robert De Nero does not line up with the cited sources or article prose. "De Niro has stated that he is not anti-vaccination, but does question their efficacy" does not support him being described as an "anti-vaccination activist", but seems to entirely support "Vaccine hesitancy". Keep in mind these were only two of the nearly 400 edits you've made linking your article to hundreds of other articles over the last 24 hours. I suggest you find consensus for these changes before you proceed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: You appear to be saying that DeNiro denying that he is "anti-vaccination" means that he is, in fact, an anti-vaccination activist. BD2412T 01:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
"Anti-vaccination" and "anti-vaccination activist" are not mutually exclusive. Considering this sophistry, I kindly suggest you self-revert your last several hundred edits. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: I fixed several hundred errors which described anti-vaccine activism as "vaccine hesitance", which is definitively not the same as being "anti-vaccination". If you disagree with this, please feel free to elevate this to the appropriate noticeboard. BD2412T 02:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A lot of these categories, like Category:Non-free biographical images published in 1938, popped up as empty categories today and it looks like you created them. Were you going to put {{emptycat}} tags on them? I assume you don't want them tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. Just checking. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 22:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: I plan to fill them all in fairly short order. We have over 25,000 images in the supercategory, about a third of which have publication dates, so I expect that these categories will be well-populated within a few days. BD2412T 00:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'll hold myself back from tagging them. It's a challenge for me. But I think it's only me that this is an issue for, no one else monitors empty categories. LizRead!Talk! 02:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
As I was driving around doing some IRL stuff today, I was thinking that I really should drop you a quick note to say "Make sure you have something to put in each of these new categories as you create them, because some of my fellow gnomes keep a sharp eye out for empty categories and tidy them up at lightning speed" but Liz beat me to it! Try to find at least one file for each empty category ASAP; Wikipedia functions best when the gnomes are kept happy and calm. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not worried. At this point there are only about a dozen and a half with no image, and I'm only up to filenames starting with "Abdul". BD2412T 04:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm in the process of putting one file in each empty category. It should take ten more minutes. You may find this sort of search helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Revert of GF edit as minor without explanation[edit]
I noticed you reverted my edit [1], marked the edit as minor and didn't explain why in the edit summary. Per Help:Minor_edit: Administrators and rollbackers can semi-automatically revert the edits of the last editor of a page; all such rollback reversions are marked as minor by the wiki software. The intended use of the rollback feature is for cases of vandalism, where the act of reverting any vandalism should be considered minor (and can be ignored in the recent changes list).. Are you really sure my good faith, factually correct edit (staying close to source) was vandalism? AncientWalrus (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@AncientWalrus: It has been explained to you multiple times that you should not be editing the article due to your stated relationship with the article subject. By continuing to edit the article after being informed of this, and after acknowledging being informed of this, you appear to be engaging in a boundary-pushing exercise to see how much you can "get away with". In short, it is clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to build a general-purpose encyclopedia. BD2412T 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The original point here: I really don't want to waste our time but I don't see how your response addresses my concerns re your WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Please clarify.
Based on things raised in your reply: Unless I misunderstand you, you have not used your administrator rights to issue an article ban to this end. If such a ban was in place I would of course respect it. As there is no such ban as far as I'm aware and because I a, I'm not sure how I am supposed to engage in boundary pushing. I am not attempting to "get away with" anything: I edit in line with policy according to my understanding thereof, including the policy on COI.
Furthermore: As you keep bringing up COI and your demand I don't edit GISAID, I would be more than happy to get this reviewed by independent editors at the appropriate venue. Unfortunately it does not appear like we can reach consensus.
I have been an administrator on this site for nearly twenty years. I have seen every means that conflicted editors employ to make an issue of something other than the conflict at hand, and I will not be drawn into such tactics. With respect to your conflict, specifically, WP:COI is very clear: "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead". This is not a personal imposition tailored to you specifically, but a statement of the general policy of the encyclopedia. BD2412T 22:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
With respect, it is you who is bringing up things other than the point at hand: your usage of admin tools.
I am well aware of the COI policy. I have stated many times that I am not conflicted. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject. Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. I am not employed by GISAID, nor am I a competitor nor an opponent. I have no financial conflict. I am simply one of tens of thousands of users and in that sense a subject matter expert with regards to the platform. If being a user of a platform represents a conflict then no Wikipedia admin should be allowed to edit the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia. Nor should anyone be allowed to write about the city they live in. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Rollback is not an admin tool. Characterizing it as such is a distraction. BD2412T 23:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for the imprecision. Rollback is a privileged tool granted to admins by default and others may get it on request. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Donald Gilman, 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 was looking at this draft as it was due to be deleted, CSD G13, before an IP editor edited this week. And I noticed that even though the article had been around for more than a decade, you moved it to Draft space. This doesn't follow current guidelines that state only newly created articles or articles that had been through AFD and draftified should be moved to Draft space so I was wondering if there was another reason here that I'm missing. Although it's not stated, some editors draftify articles where they think paid editing is involved but I don't think that that was the case for an article this old. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 05:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: The article was PRODed in 2014, and should have been deleted a week later, but somehow got missed and lingered with the PROD tag for eight years. When I came across it, it should have been deleted, but I figured that I would de facto restore it to draft space to give it a last chance for someone to take it up. I don't think there is any criteria under which an elapsed PROD can remain in mainspace under such circumstances. BD2412T 05:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
If a page of a marginally notable individual has been deleted at afd by their request, you shouldn’t be recreating it without a DRV first. This was a shocking action, although I’d assume you didn’t realise when you recreated it but you really need to undo this now and go to DRV. SpartazHumbug! 18:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Spartaz: I have re-deleted the page for discussion, although I believe that it fairly easily qualifies under WP:RECREATE, given that the article was deleted in 2017, and more numerous sources can now be found discussing the subject. I was indeed unaware that the subject does not want an article, but even so, if they continue to engage in notability-generating activities such as publishing books and well-cited articles and trying to keep their work in the public eye, that will not go well for them. BD2412T 18:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you and I would ask you to take a little more care in these cases in future. Your comment about not going well sounds unnecessarily ominous. I hope you aren’t creating these articles with some ulterior motive against the subjects? 19:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC) SpartazHumbug! 19:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I was unaware that the subject didn't want an article. I have no animus against the subject; my motivation is that notable subjects should have articles, and the notability of the subject does not hinge on their preference. This one is on the lower end of my interest and is now taking up an inordinate amount of time I would much rather be investing in finishing Draft:Sending and Draft:Intercontinental Correspondence University. BD2412T 19:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
You would have understood the background if you had gone as far as to read my closing statement on the AFD leading me to conclude that you undeleted this without any due diligence.
You are the one beating this poor donkey and we're misrepresenting my request at another forum. For a low interest article you are the one creating yourself the work.
Colour me unimpressed. SpartazHumbug! 20:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Read the caption of the image at the top of this page. BD2412T 20:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I think you already used enough of my time over this. SpartazHumbug! 20:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles[edit]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
This is beginning to feel like stalking, as an extension of the boundary-pushing conduct I expressed concerns about previously. It also neglects consideration of WP:ATD, particularly WP:ATD-R. BD2412T 14:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of the disambiguation and redirecting it. If you'd prefer me not to courtesy notify you related to disambiguation pages you created, I'm happy to do so in the future. I don't think it's appropriate to accuse me of stalking for helping to clean up the changes made as a result of questionable use of admin tools. Per WP:FOLLOWING: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You are trying to change the subject. I have seen this before as well, and from sockpuppet accounts as well. I honestly don't know why anyone ever thinks it will turn out to be a good idea. BD2412T 17:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I am likely to archive this discussion soon.
I have seen you pull the “seen this from sockpuppets” comment a few times. Unless you have user specific evidence then this is just casting aspersions and is not the conduct expected from an experienced admin who has seen it all before. So either evidence it or don’t make the comment. SpartazHumbug! 06:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Spartaz: One of this editor's first edits was to declare himself to be a "legitimate" sockpuppet, at around the same time that another editor with whom he was tag-teaming an article made an identical declaration. Both initially appeared to suggest that they had other active accounts, but had independently created these two solely so that they could edit a specific article on an entity with which they have some kind of grudge, asserting fear of retaliation from that entity. In response to a sockpuppetry concern raised by other editors on the article talk page (having neither edited that article nor encountered any of these players before), I requested an SPI, which concluded that it was possible that these were connected accounts. Aside from that possible connection, both accounts are declared sockpuppets as to unnamed other accounts, and both began editing Wikipedia for the declared purpose of making the specific article in question fit their point of view, due to their relationship with the article subjects. One of the accounts disappeared a month after the SPI. I would invite you to see their edit history for yourself, to see that they were an SPA as well. The remaining editor was cautioned multiple times that based on their COI they should not be editing that article, and in response they immediately engaged in edits on that page, apparently to see what they can get away with. They have since followed me to other articles I have edited, with which they had no prior connection.
So I hope you will understand that I am feeling stalked right now, and that I am in this exasperating position for no other reason than that I was the admin who responded to the dispute. If you had seen the same evidence, initiated the same SPI, and given the same COI caution, you would be on the receiving end of this. BD2412T 06:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sharptor, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
This was the result of providing missing closing brackets to a template. BD2412T 00:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: this is now resolved. BD2412T 19:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Misnomer of redirects end with ", The (disambiguation)"[edit]
Hi BD2412,
I see you created 118 redirects end with ", The (disambiguation)", such as Wrong Road, The (disambiguation), and categorized them in Redirects from ambiguous sort names by article title by the template {{R from ambiguous sort name}} which says this template should never appear on a page that has "(disambiguation)" in its title – in that case use {{R to disambiguation page}} instead. Additionally, the base names without the (disambiguation) qualifier don't exist, which makes the redirects MALPLACED. Therefore, these redirects should at least be moved to base name to conform to the naming conventions. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
These redirects exist for a reason, albeit on odd one. All articles for titles starting with "The", (e.g. "The Wrong Road") should have a sort name redirect from the traditional and historic encyclopedic formulation, "Wrong Road, The". This goes for disambiguation pages as well, in case someone wants to link to them from such a title. However, "The Wrong Road" is a primary topic, and ambiguous uses are at "The Wrong Road (disambiguation)". Since we don't make titles with a term after the disambiguator (which "(disambiguation)" is in these cases), the appropriate redirect to reflect the actual sort name of these articles will be "Wrong Road, The (disambiguation)"; the title literally leads to the disambiguation page disambiguating ambiguous topics that could properly be referred to as "Wrong Road, The". As for the instruction, as the creator of this category structure, I goofed, and have now fixed my error with a caveat for pages with "disambiguation" in the title as a target. BD2412T 05:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It is true that a title with a disambiguator is not properly a "sort name" for a name that does not have one. If there is a "Bob A. Smith", and "Smith, Bob A." redirects there, then the existence of a "Bob Smith (tailor)" also redirecting there does not justify the existence of a "Smith, Bob (tailor)" sortname. I think there may be some justification for having a Help,_The_(disambiguation) redirect exist, but I guess the question then is whether it should be categorized specifically as a sort name redirect, or just as an {{R to disambiguation page}}. I don't have an answer to this. BD2412T 19:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I see that today you edited hundreds of drafts, delaying deletion of them for another six months. Just a warning, I'll probably be coming to talk to you about this all again in the week before April 11, 2024! Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 03:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
They are all User:FloridaArmy's drafts, so I'll be talking to him first. Cheers! BD2412T 03:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Rensselaer R. Bigelow, 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.
Hi - could you explain your reasoning for finding a "reasonably clear" consensus for keep, please? I struggle to see how any of the keep !votes addressed the need to satisfy the requirements of NLIST other than by assertion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Various of the participants have suggested that the article can be improved. Some have worked to do this. Participants who find that the topic does satisfy WP:NLIST are presumably doing so based on the sources already in the article, and on prospective improvements. If nothing along those lines occurs, you can always renominate the article for deletion in some months time. BD2412T 01:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
One of the contibutors working on the article, changed their !vote to delete. Even if there are editors working on the article, how does this override the problems that there is no sourcing that satisfies NLIST and the SYNTH/OR issues. None of the keep !votes addressed these issues in any way other than to say, I like this stuff, it's interesting. A request - would you revert your close and relist with a specific request to address the issue of the lack of sourcing to satisfy NLIST? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
That is not an unreasonable request. BD2412T 01:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to think I'm not an unreasonable editor. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! BD2412T 01:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thank you! Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Daniel T. McCall 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.
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.
Do you know why all of these broken redirects showed up in the past few minutes? See User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. You seem to have fixed them all so they shouldn't be deleted. I'm just wondering what exactly happened with all of these "Samuel" pages. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 00:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: I thought we had this conversation before, but it must have been with someone else. I am using a two step process, with step one substing in the part of the redirect that needs to be copied to the target, and step two stripping out the part that doesn't. They only stay broken for a minute. BD2412T 00:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
George Tyler Bigelow, 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.
Ambrose Page, 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.
Welp - I thought it would be helpful to have a submission tag because of stuff like G13 that exist. Anyway, I look forward to what gets created :)
AwesomeAasim 18:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: issue resolved. BD2412T 20:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Cable A. Wirtz, 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.
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.
An editor has asked for a Move review of The Expendables 4. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I have commented in the discussion. BD2412T 02:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Davis F. Stakely, 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.
Henry B. Steagall II, 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.
Hey, is it normal to revert a good faith edit on Wiktionary when someone is reporting pro-Nazi vandalism? See this edit, please.--v/r - TP 10:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@TParis: I wouldn't call that "normal", but it may just have been done in error. BD2412T 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
To be clear, you have proposed that government health agencies can not be trusted as sources due to "regulatory capture". When asked for evidence of this, you provided sources that say nothing about regulatory capture (although they due speak to likely inefficiencies in the work of one such agency, in its apparent delinquency in pursuing a large number of small players for reasons not specified in any source provided). I have merely pointed out that the sources do not support your claim, which is a reasonable and appropriate response to such assertions. BD2412T 04:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a pretty decent article. It would be nice if you could find something about the significance or legacy of his work, but I don't know if that is to be found. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I will poke about in the next few days. BD2412T 20:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Blackstone Career Institute. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. StarMississippi 14:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry about that, forgot to untick notify. I know better than to template active editors especially since you were in the AfD and knew the outcome. StarMississippi 14:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: "in the AfD" is a bit of an understatement. I nominated the article to be moved to draftspace. BD2412T 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, have you seen this edit (by Walter Tau)? Two complete sections have been removed. Edcolins (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@Edcolins: Thank you, that is odd, and frankly concerning. Please keep an eye on this as well. Some other aspects of that edit were odd in terms of formatting, removing quotes, and messing up the categories somewhat. Cheers! BD2412T 05:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I will try to keep an eye on this. Cheers, Edcolins (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
J. Gorman Houston 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.
Tom Glaze, 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.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Atlaspheres. 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. TheDireMasterchat 10:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
