User talk:BilledMammal

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yarra Falls has been accepted

Yarra Falls, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks, User:Theroadislong. I wasn't expecting such a quick response! BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kimiko Ezaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestyle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethiopia – woredas or districts

Hi BilledMammal. Please note my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia/Geography#Woredas or Districts before making further changes to those articles. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BilledMammal! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clubmen of Dorset and Wiltshire has been accepted

Clubmen of Dorset and Wiltshire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops, thank you bot. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wehda Street airstrikes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fall of Kabul (2001)

Hello! Your submission of Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you BuySomeApples (talk · contribs); I appear to be too late to reply, but I'm happy with the primary hook :). Have a good day, I'm off to get some apples! BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good @BilledMammal:! It looks like my apple propaganda is working... BuySomeApples (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amrullah Saleh on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Y--BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Fall of Kabul (2001)

On 27 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fall of Kabul (2001), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 2001 Fall of Kabul, young men lined up to have their beards shaved off? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fall of Kabul (2001)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the update! BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Belaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crimean Tatar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Aukus

Good afternoon Sir. I have nominated your work at WP:ITN/C Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it is more others work by this point (including your own) but thank you all the same; I find it a particularly interesting turn of events. BilledMammal (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Aukus

On 18 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aukus, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Y - Done though the lack of specification made it a lengthy endeavour... BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Invite

السلام שלום We invite you to join WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Israeli–Palestinian conflict articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the project page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other project members. Happy editing, Shrike (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:AUKUS on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Y - Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI: on WP:INVOLVED

You cited this ArbCom case as a reason to believe that INVOLVED applies to anyone who has a "rooted interest" in a topic. This is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. ArbCom is not the Supreme Court. They resolve disputes, but their rulings are not binding outside of their specific contexts. They do not create precedents. They do not shape policy. They do not interpret policies in a way that is applicable in any other context. Guidelines and policies are formed entirely from community consensus. And ArbCom does not represent the will of the community in that way. They represent themselves as an alternative and last-ditch method of very specific contextual dispute resolution.

Secondly, you cite WP:NACINV, ignoring the fact that this essay again is entirely about the past tense. If you find a policy/guideline that says an editor should avoid becoming involved in a topic after they close a discussion about it, I would love to read it. Because that would fundamentally change how I interact with the wiki.

Otherwise, please do not cast aspersions in my direction unless you are ready to back an accusation up with policy- and diff-based evidence, on a noticeboard or user talk page. That also applies to @HTGS: Thank you both for respecting my wishes. I mean no disrespect, but it is both unfortunately common, and very much against policy to bring these things up as a "trump card" in discussions such as was done at WP:NCNZ. It was grossly inappropriate and an exact violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Not enough to do anything about it, but a warning to the wise. Repeated instances of citing misconduct as a reason to WP:WIN a discussion could be brought to WP:ANI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was conflict edited so many times, I will add my out of date thoughts here:

"The rule exists for the obvious reason. A lawyer cannot judge their own case or be seen to be doing so. In this discussion they will have no power beyond their knowledge and persuasiveness, both of which are valuable.

The most important thing for me is that what ever we agree, we all toe the line, best we are able. We can’t do that by excluding 'involved' editors from this discussion." Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• My apologies @Dushan Jugum, it was a very impassioned discussion on my end. As the person who added that collapse, I give you full and unbridled permission (and anyone else who was EC'd and reads this) to re-add their thoughts to the collapsed discussion. I collapsed it because it detracts from the overall ability to read through that already monster of an RfC. But I don't think adding your edit conflicted thoughts to it will impede that goal in any way. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No no, it went through frustrating and ended up funny. I am overjoyed with the collapse, I was finding it hard to navigate the thread and had been there for a while, woe betide anyone who is new. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @Shibbolethink

I did have some misconceptions about how ARBCOM works, and though I still find it a little murky I thank you for providing some clarity. However, in this case I don't believe I was relying on those misconceptions; I believe that we are merely relying on it an authoritative clarification (as in "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable" not "proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience") of how WP:INVOLVED should be interpreted^†.

In regards to WP:NACINV, I would like to clarify that I wasn't citing it, but was instead referring to it as an essay that speaks to the points I raise. In particular, I find Closing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure. is of particular interest. To me, this would suggest that current but undisclosed conflicts of interest ("rooting interest", as stated by ARBCOM) are problematic, a conclusion that closely aligns with my personal opinions on the matter. I am willing to take it on faith that you did not have a "rooting interest" when you closed the RM's, but your contribution to the later discussion gives the appearance that you did.

I would also like to clarify that when I previously considered bringing the matter to your attention, it was with the aim to post on your talk page rather than the RfC. Further, I would like to clarify that I consider your contribution to the RfC to be "proper", and believe that the formally correct remedy would be to reverse your closures, not strike your contribution, though I would further note that I do not believe such a reversal to be in the best interest of Wikipedia; while I do believe that your closure was potentially "improper", I also believe it to be "right" based on the current guidelines^‡ and consensus based on those guidelines and so per the example in the second paragraph of WP:SNOW, a waste of everyone's time to repeat.

Indeed, my general hope in joining that discussion on it was to have you consider your future actions in the context of it, and not alter your past actions - although here I erred, and though I don't believe my failure to do so was a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, being an effort to resolve my concerns with you, I should have moved the conversation to your talk page much earlier, and to this end I have struck my comments on the RfC, and apologise to you now.

^†I believe this to be in line with your citation of WP:ASPERSIONS, as an information supplement intended to authoritatively clarify WP:PA through relevant ARBCOM rulings

^‡Though there is a debate about whether there was ever a consensus for that guideline, that is a matter to discuss if the RfC closes as no consensus and further RfC's are unable to determine what alterations are required for a consensus to be established, and far too nebulous to consider in closing

PS: I hope nobody minds that I have altered the indentation in the above discussion, in order to better "chain" it. If you do, please don't hesitate to revert

BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, sorry that things went a bit south for you there. For what it's worth, I certainly wasn't suggesting you were breaking rules.

However I did find your closures and subsequent comments in the RfC uncomfortable. As I think BilledMammal put it, it felt outside the spirit of the law. You hinged the closures on acting out the naming conventions as they were currently stated, despite an RfC that was soon to be opened. I would usually hope that any editor would put off closing such discussions until the RfC was closed, especially as the page moves were not of high importance. But then to comment on the RfC with an opinion so far outside of what I expect an informed or considered editor to post... well it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, I guess. The whole thing appeared improper, and as though you were acting with an agenda.

Hope you're dealing ok; I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly wish you no ill will, and I strongly suspect that's true for the others involved. If you're still in med school, or working in healthcare, I'm sure you're well stressed outside of your efforts on Wikipedia, so I'm sorry that involvement with the Project had to add stress in your life like that. Look after yourself first. — HTGS (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, BilledMammal,

Thank you for tagging Holy ejaculation for speedy deletion, that needed to go! I saw that you use Twinkle for tagging pages but you didn't post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. Please set up your Preferences to always "Notify page creator". Sometimes this involves checking boxes for all of the different types of CSD criteria. I've heard that Twinkle's default setting is that only a few criteria, like A7 and G11, are checked but a notice has to be posted for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.) tagging that you do. Thank you again for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for getting to that, and for letting me know about the need to notify. I've now updated my preferences (after becoming aware of said preferences) so it shouldn't happen again - it seems it is on by default for all rationales except for C1, R2, R3, and R4. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

very quietly

hey, BilledMammal, i didn't want to say this on WT:DYK where everyone'll see it, but the reason I asked you to check ALT3f was because we'd went full circle—it was the same as ALT3a. The discussion's archived now—so nothing to worry about really :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That was a silly discussion on my part, but I will admit I got a good laugh out of it when you pointed out what happened - thank you! :) BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin

On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles IV commanded the significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

prior accounts

Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 00:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, you need to stop asking this question. If your suspicion is correct and an individual is a sockpuppet then they will lie and the question provides no benefit, and if they are not a sockpuppet then you have cast WP:ASPERSIONS on an innocent editor. But no, I am not a sockpuppet, and if you believe I am take it to SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Read the links you post. Read where it says It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. Asking an editor a question once is not, and cannot be, "casting aspersions". So no, I do not need to stop asking this question, and asking it provides for further potential evidence in the response. But thank you for answering. nableezy - 02:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." You might argue that this is an innocent question, but it is too pointed to be innocent particularly given your history, and it contributes to the hostile environment in the area.

Of course, this doesn't prevent you from asking the question, but it does require you to provide evidence when you do. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been no accusation. If youd like to report me for casting aspersions feel free. My history? Huh. nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that I am not the only editor to have had issues with your approach, and so I have reluctantly done so. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

ARBPIA

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

A standard message about an administrative ruling in effect

Hello, You have expressed interests in the E.Europe (The Holocaust) topics -->[1],[2],[3] I would like you to be aware of the below ruling. Happy editing.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GizzyCatBella🍁 14:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding duplicate

Howdy. I added "part II" to the title of the AE report you've initiated, so that it doesn't mis-direct to the earlier AE report on the same editor. Hope that's alright, with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Help Request

Hey BilledMammal. Yesterday, you helped me fix the FAQ on Talk:Killing of David Amess. I recently started Wikipedia:Assassination as a way to help direct this confusion in the future about Wikipedia not calling the murder of a politician an assassination. I haven't posted an essay before, and I am not sure if you have either, but would you mind helping me out? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

AE filing closed

Hi, just letting you know this AE has been closed (details here). Thank you for withdrawing the filing but please review the level of evidence required for an AE post before posting future ones. . -- Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Guideline Proposed which you might be interested in.

Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Social democracy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for abuse of process

Hi, BilledMammal. Nableezy previously had a vexatious WP:AE complaint filed against him on 16 October, as you were of course aware at the time you filed the next one on 24 Oct, since you had commented on the earlier case a little more than a week earlier. Withdrawing your own vexatious complaint[4] after it got no traction isn't good enough, nor do I find Euryalus's mild warning above (not even a logged warning) adequate. You have been blocked for 48 hours for abuse of our processes, and for egregious failure to consider the drain on a user's time and psychic energy that such a one-two of complaints is likely to cause. Please, another time, consider the human behind the username and the effects of your actions on them. Our boards are not intended as tools for taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing by the gutta cavat lapidem technique, not even if unintended. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Also, I will post a request for review of this block at WP:ANI. If you wish to comment there, please write below and I'm sure somebody will copypaste it to ANI. Bishonen | tålk 06:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC).

Apologies for the delayed reply; I needed to step back. If you reply, please note that it will probably be a few weeks before I reply again.

Perhaps I was being too sensitive, but when when you say to think of the person behind the username, that's all I wanted Nableezy to do, and when they declined to change their behaviour by going straight to SPI with any suspicions they had in the future, all I wanted from AE was to compel them to do so - nothing more. Clearly, AE was the wrong place to try and address this.

I was aware of the Free1Soul case, but I want to note that I feel that I defended Nableezy there and criticized Free1Soul.

I'll leave whether you want to transcribe this over to ANI to you; I only wanted to explain myself here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

And tell me the meaning of life while you are at it.

Maungarei to Maungarei / Mount Wellington. I am fine with it. But are we shifting every Duel name to English and every Māori name to Duel. I mean that is what we are doing, given the old rule and the way the language is shifting I can see how we got here. But how can we know we are being neutral in doing it and not just following my middle aged Pākehā gut feeling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dushan Jugum (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think that is what we are doing; in addition to Goat Island / Rakiriri which I moved to the Maori name, there are many articles currently at the Maori name that I would not support moving, and several at dual names that I would not support moving in either direction.

As for how we are neutral in this, I think we just need to try to apply WP:CRITERIA in a fair and consistent manner; if we do so we will likely arrive at a decent result for all articles, though individual opinions might vary depending on how much weight the individual gives specific aspects of criteria, and how much weight the individual gives different forms of evidence.

PS: 42 BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Greeks on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How an option can be added to an ongoing RfC?

Having two maps with different views (the one I added and the one the RfC is about) is not listed as an option in the RfC question. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert only when necessary

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

Hello BilledMammal, I was wondering why you were going through and reverting almost every single edit I have made to Wikipedia. This seems to be at odds with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary.

Will you be attending the South African Discord meetup in two hours? Would like to discuss this issue with you there.

I hope you can understand why reverting tons of work can be frustrating especially when no sources or explanation is given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/South_Africa

Hi User:Desertambition

Not quite every edit; I was reverting many, but not all, of your recent WP:BOLD moves because my research showed that it was unclear whether the official name had become the common name, and in some cases it appeared clear to me that it had not yet done so. Please note that while I did not provide sources, as it is a little difficult to provide the number required to ascertain WP:COMMONNAME in an edit summary, I did provide an explanation in every case.

Incidentally, I wanted to message you myself, and ask you to self-revert your reimplementation of the move to Kala, Eastern Cape? The practice is that once a move is contested, such as by reverting it, you open a RM to avoid engaging in a WP:PMW.

As for the meetup, unfortunately I will not be able to attend. BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I find is very unreasonable to reverse months of my edits in six hours without even talking about me. It is unreasonable to have to create a move request for every single page in existence. Especially for a page like Cala->Kala which is just a grammatical change. It has also been changed since 2006. You di not provide an explanation for every case and you do not even check sources. I am irritated that you erased months of work. That was avsolutely not appropriate. Please tell me how "Kala" is a controversial name change. I would like to go through and revert every change you made to my profile. Extremely inappropriate. Desertambition (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Desertambition

As I said in my edit summary, I reverted Kala because a news search shows significant levels of recent use of "Cala" and it is unclear whether the common name has followed the official name. (See 1234).

As such, please follow WP:RMUM, revert your recent move-reimplementation and open an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to revert changes when the evidence does not say what you believe it says. You reverted almost every single change in the last few months and you refuse to create your own fleshed out reasonings. Please revert your moves and provide detailed explanations for why they should be moved back. It is unreasonable to do what you are suggesting I do. Again, you deleted MONTHS of work, your evidence is suspect and less compelling than what I have provided. You have not responded to me on the Qonce page where you provided very weak evidence and then refused to back down. This is incredibly frustrating. I have attempted to engage with you and discuss this but it seems like a clear example of WP:HOUNDING. You have not assumed good faith on my part at any point and it is hard to engage with you when that is the case. You immediately assumed bad faith and erased months of work. This conversation is getting us nowhere and it's clear we aren't agreeing on the facts of the situation despite having the same evidence in front of us both. I have created a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force if you would like to read a more thorough explanation of my position. If no consensus is reached after a few days we should take this to dispute resolution because we do not seem to be making progress. But for now, I believe we should wait for further discussion from other users. Desertambition (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that I have violated WP:HOUNDING and WP:AGF, the correct place to take this is WP:ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Maddy Dychtwald on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise

Greetings! Your table made me laugh, and had nothing to do with my retirement. Take care. Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Should all characteristics of a topic be included in the title?

This is slightly off topic, so I'm mentioning it on your talk page. I think you keep falling into the trap of "all major characteristics of a topic must be included in the title". But that's not the case and I don't think even you believe that. For example, here you proposed the title "Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike" for an event in which many were killed. No dictionary definition of "missile strike" includes the deaths of humans (and many missile strikes don't kill anyone at all). In fact, plenty of article titles don't convey all major facts about the topic. Consider the frequent "Shooting vs Killing" debate: for example, the title Shooting of Oscar Grant doesn't tell the reader that Oscar Grant was actually killed, so should we rename this to "Killing of Oscar Grant"? Well, if we have a WP:COMMONTITLE (meaning a name preferred by RS that discuss the subject) then we go with that, even if that name doesn't convey all the major facts. VR _talk 06:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is sufficiently relevant to the RM, but I'll reply here just once. The difference is what the reader will expect to find at the page from the title. In the case of "Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike", they will correctly expect to find a missile strike. At "Shooting of Oscar Grant", they will correctly expect to find a shooting. At "History of concubinage in the Muslim world" they will expect, based on modern definitions of concubinage (Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins), to find an article about the practice of keeping mistresses in the Muslim world, when in fact they will find an article about slavery. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox officeholder on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Article titles on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Tabling the issue

Howdy. It's enjoyable to see that Bastun is still trying to annoy me :) GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, it should be a top-10 least, with editor ranked according to # of posts in the 'survey' section (not including the 'vote' posts). GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Khubusi River Unilateral Move

Please make a move request in response to a good faith move instead of doing it unilaterally. Present evidence for why it should be moved. I have moved it back in the meantime. Desertambition (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:RMUM, specifically "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." I would ask that you self-revert your repeated move, and if you believe the move is still warranted, open an RM proposing to do so.

Before opening the RM, I would ask you to look at the evidence I referenced in my move; ngrams, and google news searches for Khubusi River and Kubusi River. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction closed

Hello, the ARCA you filed has been closed, see here for the Arbitrators' views on the matter. The request has been archived here should you wish to review it in future. The section will be removed from the main ARCA page in 24 hours in accordance with standard procedure. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This seemed like the right place to drop this in. :) Regarding your list of GSoW editors on the evidence page, Wyatt Tyrone Smith self-disclosed here]. I seem to remember that CatCafe also disclosed, but that was using one of their other accounts, so I'd need to dig a bit further. (CatCafe has a nasty history, but as I think GSoW was as much fooled as anyone, I'm not thinking that it is ultimately relevant). - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, edited my statement for Wyatt Tyrone Smith. I won't change CatCafe for now - regarding their history, I would agree that their worst behaviours aren't relevant, as those behaviours don't appear to be related to them being a member of GSoW. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Todd Ames Hunter on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal statements about users as you did to me at WP:ANI. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording of level-4s and -4ims is kinda funny, if you think about it. "You may be blocked from editing without further warning." Like, you may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add a citation to an article. You probably won't! It'd be really weird, and the blocking admin might get desysopped. But... You may be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you comment at RFD. You won't, because that would be really weird and I'm not an admin, but... You may be. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

...also, you may be blocked even before you do anything once an admin notices that someone else tagged you with a 4im. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for nominating the article on Hazel Hutcheon for deletion. This is going to be a big task to remove the articles we have on Olympians who no longer meet our inclusion criteria. I am glad to see it has been begun.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Happy to help where I can; Wikipedia isn't the place for articles that are impossible to expand beyond a database entry. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

True. We have a lot of articles that meet that definition though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Also thankyou for nominating Aad Oudt. It appears some editors are trying to ignore the RfC, and still claim that people participating in the Olympics are defualt notable for participating in the Olympics, even though the clear decision was only those who medal are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit some days I fear it will take almost as long for the Olympics RfC to stick as it has for the secondary schools RfC to have impact. That happened in 2017 but it was literally only today that a significant number of articles on secondary schools in Michigan were nominated for deletion. Before today almost all such deletions had been done with schools in India or the Phillipines. With the Olympians we have seen a few articles deleted, but the number of single non-GNG sources articles is staggering. This is a much larger set of articles than we faced with the Tolkien created fictional characters set three years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is also probably more articles than faced in the cricket debates 2 years ago. Here we have seen an actual change in the default notability criteria. Part of me is thinking that I may for the time being try to focus just on truly marginal American Olympians. I still am surprised that so few have nominated articles for deletion. Although the fact that when one does so this is considered grounds for speaking negative falsehoods against them does not help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth restarting WP:SCISSORS, to allow us to work through groups of articles, as well as conduct a collaborative WP:BEFORE process. In regards to marginal American Olympians, this is probably a good way to find a list - normally I use "biography" as the second project, but that search seems to produce generally relevant results.

In the meantime, I'm thinking about nominating the following for deletion:

Aaron Keith - might be better to start with less contestable articles, as he appears to meet both WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NCYCLING, but as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV (the closest I could find was "In the men's C1 pursuit, Aaron Keith is set to make his Paralympic debut at age 50. Keith's burgeoning cycling career was interrupted by a mountain biking accident in 1993 that left him with paralysis below the knee. He got into para cycling, eventually made the national team in 2013, and has competed at the world championships many times, but he missed out on making the U.S. Paralympic Team in 2016. Keith holds a silver medal in the individual pursuit from the 2017 World Championships" and "American Aaron Keith just missed the finals of the men's 3000m individual pursuit C1 with a fifth-place finish overall, losing out on a shot at the bronze medal by about a half-second in his Paralympic debut. The 50-year-old fractured his 12th thoracic vertebra in his early 20s while mountain biking with teammates in Virginia – at the time, he was among the state's best riders") I am considering it.

Aaron Herman - fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and the only coverage I could find of him was a passing mention on an article about Simone Biles

Abraham Mellinger - fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and I wasn't able to identify any coverage.

Thoughts Johnpacklambert? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I might prod the bottom two rather than taking them straight to AFD; the tags are likely to be removed without any significant coverage being provided, but on the off chance that coverage is provided or they aren't removed, it will save us all a lot of time. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I really think that now that we have agreed that not all Olympic competitors are default notable for doing that there needs to be an RfC on cycling notability. It no longer makes sense for other Subject notability guidelines to say all Olympic competitors are default notable. Also, if the Olympics do not confer default notability, does it make sense to say participation in other races that happen annually do. I would think it would be worth trying an RfC and waiting to nominate such an article. I will look at the specific cases in a bit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense; no need to go after the where people might inappropriately !vote "Keep per SNG" when we can address articles that fail both GNG and the relevant SNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Abraham Mellinger seems a slam dunk deletion case. Back when I would argue against the all Olympic competitors are default notable idea, the 1904 Olympics was the showcase of why this was so. There were just over 600 competitors. Just over 500 from the USA and about 100 from elsewhere, including Canada. Some of the competitions apparently doubled as US championships, lots of tip sports people from Europe did not make these Olympics. Asia, Africa and Latin America were not directly represented, but these games were connected to the World's Fair. So that seems as easy sell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mellinger seems very proposed deletionable. Especially with the whole context of what the 1904 Olympics actually were.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Prodded Mellinger - based on what you have said, the 1904 Olympics might be a good place to start working through, though we will need to use categories for that rather than a project search. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Mellinger does not seem to be the only person in that event who is not notable. There were 10 competitors, 9 from the USA, bit gold was won by the one non-American. So we have Albert Bechestobill, who lost to the guy who lost as close to the finals as anyone did. We also have Samuel Filler who lost in that extra removed round. Both are sourced only from sports reference and Olympia, which are word for word the same. More telling to me is our articles on these people leave out some crucial details, almost as if they have been written to hide what is going on. Filler represented the Chicago Central YMCA and Bechestobill represented the St. Louis Amerature Athletic Association. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A full 8 1904 Olympic participants were members of the Turners organization in St. Louis. Another was sponsored by such an organization in New Jersey. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet the Turners article says nothing of such organizations sponsoring participants in the 1904 Olympics. Well it also has its current stats from 2011, thus 11 years out of date. I have a sense in its coverage of Olympic related things Wikipedia currently over values bios and under values covering the larger structures that enable these things. Some of this might be personal bios are more popular that writing on the structures and systems. Yet we clearly have way to many sub-stub level bios that have no value. Including the ignoring of sponsoring and affiliation information in sources we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually the winner of the 1904 Olympics was not by some measures Norwegian. He was in 2012 reclassed as Norwegian because he did not actually get US citizenship until 1905, but this means he was a legal resident of the US in 1904 and for several years before this. It seems to basically be a reclassified act that ignores his will. He was sponsored by the Brooklyn Norwegian American Turners organization. So the whole competition was Americans sponsored by various Amature clubs in the US. In fact Illinos, Missouri, New Jersey and New York so far. The Olympics overall were a bit broader, but not this wrestling. Also this shows there were non-German Turners, so our article over emphasizes the German ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

At least 3 different Turners organizations in St. Louis had teams at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics. The Tug-o-war winning team at that Olympics represented one of the St. Louis Turners organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I was a little wrong. That team got the silver. The gold went to an organization from Milwaukie. The bronze went to a different team from the same St. Louis Turner organization that the Silver winning team came from. There was one other team in the 1904 Olympic tug-o-war. It was from the New York Athletic club. I have to say in this case I am skeptical that being on a team that won a medal, except maybe a gold medal, would be a sign of notability. Overall I am not sure we should treat team medals the same as individual ones.The 1994 Olympics are an interesting case for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to verify the "against his wishes" aspect, as given that he died in 1916 that seems difficult to determine, but unfortunately the URL is dead, but the SVD report on the change doesn't mention it - I'm going to remove that claim. As for why, I don't think that personal bios are more popular in general, I just think it is easier to write a one line personal bio than it is to write a full article, so even if most of our editors work on the latter, a few working solely on the formal is enough to produce a lot of articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the tug of war teams, I think I would agree - while some of the team members might have had sufficient coverage, I don't believe it is safe to assume that all or even most did. I'm not sure I'll nominate them any time soon, given the medalling aspect, but I will look into the non-winning teams, though I note most of them already lack articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The 1904 Olympics had one competition, the 8 person rowing, with just 2 teams, so no bronze was given. N. M. Smith appears to have been eliminated in the first round of tennis. He was in 3 other non-olympuc competitions at the 1904 St. Louis world's fair the 1904 Olympics were part of, and he only won 1 match in those other competitions. What exactly is the rational for our articles being shorter and less informative than sports reference.com. I think it is bad that we are too close to an IMDb mirror, but the sports reference situation is crazier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at that article, I particularly enjoy the infobox, which states: "Full name: N. M. Smith". The fact that we don't know his full name does suggest a general lack of notability, but the fact that the article tells us that is his full name is a little amusing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Douglass Turner (tennis) is another interesting 1904 case. The repeated source that our article is based on throws out possible birth and death information, and then admits there is no real known connection. This seems to indicate that outside of the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair there is no evidence of a Douglass Turner doing tennis at all. I am glad the unfounded possible connection is not in our "article".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If N. M. Smith was from Sri Lanka I might believe that was essentially his full name. Since he was an American I am sure it was not, although he may have used it a lot. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, one more before I go to bed. This is an intriguing case. Stewart Trittle. He was chief of construction at the 1904 St. Louis world's fair. Would this make him notable? I have doubts, and our article neglects mentioning this. He lost every game of tennis he was in, both demonstration and Olympic. It is unclear if he had any background actually playing tennis. Was he just a warm body to fill out the court? Were lots of support and such staff doubling as athletes? John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Before October of last year it seemed some did not care as Ling as we could check " participated in the Olympics". John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. One last one. George Stadel you have to see what they say about him at Olympia. In the singles he was in the only round 1 match and lost. He competed as late as 1922, but seems to have lost Round 1 in basically every match he played.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You have to admire the persistence. I've prodded Tritle; I was hoping I could find something that would explain how the chief of construction ended up playing in the games (and at the same time allow him to meet GNG) but unfortunately there was nothing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. This really will be the last. Nathaniel Semple is an intriguing case. We have an obituary for him, or maybe a death notice. It fails to mention his being an Olympic competitor at all. Just mentions he was a medical doctor. Olympia makes statements about advanced medical training in Germany and France. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple died only 9 years after the Olympics. He died in the city where the Olympics were held. To use Wikipedia parlance at the time of his death not only do some people not see 1904 Olympic participation as a sign 9f notability, they do not even see it as something that you include in basic bio detail so not even defining. That might be reading too close, but it still is surprising that there is no mention of the Olympics there. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Too be fair that is more a funeral announcement than a true obituary. Still the total non-mention of the Olympic role would seem less surprising if it was from much later and he had a much longer medical career. Here it seems to indicate that the Olympics were not viewed in the same way in the 1910s as they are now in the 2020s. Although from this one data point I cannot tell if this was true of all Olympics, or if 1904 was an especial case, and of course one data point does not tell us very much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That is interesting. The obituary is on the third page of the paper, and doesn't appear to have been paid which suggests some level of prominence, although I don't believe it constitutes WP:SIGCOV itself. I'll have a look, see what else I can find. As for what it suggests about the Olympics, possibly - although I'm not sure modern obituaries would consistently mention merely competing in the Olympics. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a full length obituary, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any additional coverage, unless you were able to find it? BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Tritle, I found some significant coverage and deprodded it, but I'm not sure its enough to meet WP:GNG. Further, there is still no explanation as to why he played Tennis at that Olympics, though I assume it was due to his membership of the St Louis Athletics Club. BilledMammal (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• K. Woerner is another example that the sports reference source says his full name is just the letter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Frank Raab I did a search for him. I came up with a clearly different Frank Raab who was a local level head of water distribution in Oklahoma, and that was about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Prodded both. For common names, I've started to limit searches to the year they competed, and to obituaries in the year the died; if nothing can be found in either, it is likely that they aren't notable, and very likely that they aren't notable for competing in the Olympics. It is possible that a search limited in such a manner could miss something, but I believe the chance is sufficiently low that it isn't worth spending hours reading hundreds of news paper articles about other people. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Brought George Stadel to AFD; they meet WP:NATH, so prod is not suitable, but I cannot find anything even approaching significant coverage, though I may have found some passing mentions from 1906. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I/P

Yeah I know to edit the area you need a thick skin but still Its a shame that you avoiding the area wikipedia needs a capable editors there. I hope you reconsider. Shrike (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:COMMONALITY discussion

Kia ora - I couldn't help but notice that you've made a lot of recent edits which have removed terms with Māori origins from articles. These terms have distinct meanings from what you've replaced them with, and are commonly used in New Zealand English (which the articles should be using) when referring to those specific topics. Please refrain from making such edits in the future. Turnagra (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Turnagra:; I made the changes as required by WP:COMMONALITY, in order to allow all our readers, not just those from New Zealand, to understand the article - see the examples of Spectacles and Crore, both of which apply here. Further, the global English that I replaced them with does hold the same meaning and match use in reliable sources, but I have no objection to tweaking the wording if you believe there is another that would be more appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is in keeping with WP:COMMONALITY. This isn't an instance where there are different terms globally for the same thing (eg. spectacles, which are known by glasses when they exist elsewhere), but rather one where it's an example unique to New Zealand, where they are known almost exclusively as kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori. As they only exist in NZ, we should be using the common names for the topics there per MOS:TIES, which are unquestionably the aforementioned terms. We can explain the term if we think it's needed, but a better approach would be to make sure that Kōhanga Reo has an article to explain it (as Kura Kaupapa Māori does) if people are interested.

Replacing kawanatanga with governance is a separate issue given that the translation of those terms is a foundational aspect of many claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, and changing one for the other could be interpreted as going against WP:NPOV so we'd need to give more thought on how best to address that. Turnagra (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable New Zealand sources describe these as I did, which both supports the argument that this is the correct term alternative term, and that it is part of New Zealand English - whether it is the common word or not does not matter to WP:COMMONALITY, with crore being far more common than ten million in India, and yet we prefer "ten million" as very few readers outside of India will understand what Crore means, even though we have an article explaining it and we can explain it in text. I don't see an issue here, though I see your point regarding kawanatanga. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the range of articles and topics you've done this on I'm not sure which specific term you're referring to when you mention 'reliable NZ sources' so I can't speak to that, though I will note that in the case of Kōhanga reo that term is almost exclusively used - if the term "Māori language preschool" is used, it's almost always as an explanatory statement and not as the name for that specific institution. The article for Secondary school isn't at "School for ages 11-18", and the article for IHOP isn't at "breakfast-based restaurant chain". As for crore, we do use that in several articles relating to Indian topics, particularly when referring to valuations of companies. We generally have an explanation / conversion with it, which I'm happy enough to do (and I generally do when mentioning, for instance, that a lake is recognised as a mahinga kai). I'm going to open a discussion at the WPNZ noticeboard about the best way to resolve the kawanatanga issue given the NPOV concerns there, as I think that's a specific area where more input would be valuable. Turnagra (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Turnagra: The difference with IHOP is that it the name of the place, rather than a classifier. For example, the name is "Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Tamarongo", the classifier that all readers, not just New Zealand readers, will understand is "Māori language school". The difference with "Secondary school" is that all readers will understand what it refers to.

I will also ask; how did you notice those changes? I see that you have never edited any of the pages I made those changes on. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I keep track of many pages relating to NZ, even if I haven't edited them previously - though I'm not sure how that's relevant. My point is more that we don't intentionally use less accurate terms when there is a better term available, especially when such a term is what's used in NZ English per MOS:TIES. Turnagra (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't entirely answer my question; how did you come across those particular pages? BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I had a few of them on my watchlist, and then when I saw the edits were made by the same user I checked for other instances - as any editor would do when seeing such edits. But again, I don't see how that's relevant unless you're trying to case WP:ASPERSIONS. Turnagra (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The relevance is that I had some concerns about WP:HOUNDING, and I hope you can understand why. However, your explanation is reasonable, and as long as it doesn't become part of a broader pattern my concerns are addressed; thank you.

To return to the main topic, can I ask how "Māori language school" is less accurate than "Kura Kaupapa Māori"? BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't even realise that WP:HOUNDING was a thing - I've had concerns about other users against me in that regard in the past but didn't think to look into grounds to call them out.

I think the issue is that kura kaupapa Māori aren't just Māori language schools, they're a different approach to education that reflects tikanga and kaupapa Māori practices. Saying that they're Māori language schools overly simplifies the notion of these schools, and implies that they're simply western schools taught in a different language rather than a unique approach to education. This is similar with Kōhanga Reo as well, where they're more than just Māori language facilities but are far more grounded in te ao Māori. Turnagra (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point; would "Māori school" be more appropriate then? Looking into the use of that naming convention, it appears to typically refer to a school taught in a certain system; an "American school" is taught in the American system and a "British school" is taught in the British system. BilledMammal (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's better but it still doesn't really work - the examples you listed are both their own distinct school systems, instead of a type of school within a wider system. Kura kaupapa Māori are still fundamentally part of the NZ school system instead of their own thing, just as how a Steiner school or a Catholic school would be. It also introduces ambiguity, as someone could equally interpret "Māori school" to be a western school with a majority Māori roll. Kura kaupapa Māori unambiguously refers to this specific approach to education, and any uncertainty should be resolved by the preview when linked to the associated article. Turnagra (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think your specific examples of "Catholic school" and "Steiner school" support the notion that readers will correctly understand "Māori school"; they understand that these are schools with a different approach to education, and will understand the same thing about "Māori school". BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Māori language school currently redirects to Kura Kaupapa Māori, but could reasonably also refer to Native schools (or church/missionary schools) prior to 1867, which played a huge role in spreading literacy in the Māori language.-gadfium 08:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point; might be better as a disambiguation page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wingnut (politics) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Aage Rubæk-Nielsen

The removal of the proposal do delete the article on Aage Rubæk-Nielsen illustrates to me that we need to update other sport notability criteria so they actually stop assuming all Olympians are default notable just for participating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: Agreed; it isn't a reasonable predictor of notability. However, I'm not sure whether to add it as proposal 10 under the current proposals for NSPORT, or if it is best to wait for the results of those and then open a new discussion. Thoughts? BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Do you have a link where I can see this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS BilledMammal (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Johnpacklambert: Regarding redirects, under current policy I believe most of these redirects are appropriate; a larger discussion would need to occur if you prefer to delete them, as this is a case that I don't believe was considered when that policy was written. BilledMammal (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My biggest worry is that if we leave the redirects with categories intact we will end up with some categories that are all redirects. I am also not convinced it helps to send people to a statement the person competed. Most existing name redirects are to musical groups the person was in or to articles or a production group, writing pair or the like. At least of redirects with a birth year included. Actually almost half of those are to articles about a death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reading Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, most of those redirects should be deleted. These are articles considered not notable, so they should only be categorized within the list they are directed to - for instance, Abolghasem Sakhdari should only be in the category Wrestlers at the 1948 Summer Olympics. I think it should be fine, the only issue will be going through all those articles to make it happen. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Olympian PRODs/AfDs

While I agree the Olympians you are PRODing/AFDing are non-notable, please consider redirection as an alternative to deletion where a suitable target exists. Would also save us the trouble of all of these AfD discussions. Although such redirections have on occasion been revered, there are plenty of cases where they haven't been as well so that would be an easier and more useful solution. Smartyllama (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I normally only AFD when notability is presumed through some aspect of WP:NSPORTS, or the PROD is challenged, but I will use redirects more in place of the PROD - thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Then we have cases like Luis Mantilla, which was reverted from a redirect. There is no substantial source added, just another mention in a bare directory. The article still lacks any Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if that violates Lugnuts restriction on creating articles from redirects? BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Brought it to AFD myself, as I couldn't find any sources that indicated notability. BilledMammal (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Arthur Lindegren is another redirect that was reverted. No sources providing Sigcov have been added to the article. Is this [5] that has not been added as a source, but was tagged by the reverted, really Sigcov. This is a local insterest story that involves an interview of the with a local participant in the last Olympics, mainly to give local color to a story about the Olympics. I do not think this constitutes SigCov. I really hope subproposals 5 and 6 pass, at least 5. Although some of this boils down to people misidentifying things as SigCov that are clearly not. Oh well, we have articles sourced only to IMDb and we have articles that have been tagged since before Jan. 1, 2010 as having no sources, the problems with Wikipedia go beyond Sports. Althogh with about half of all BLPs on sports figures they are a big problem. Of course I have no way of knowing how many of those are only thought to be BLPs because so many people vanish after a very short and not well covered participation in sport, so we have a lot of articles on sports people who are dead, but we just cannot source that because no one has noticed them at all since they competed in the 1964 Olympics (and they were barely noticed then), but since they would only be roughly 78 if alive, it is far too soon to apply any presumed death on them, so the articles will just languish another 12+ years in Living people, even though we have no evidence of them being alive for over 50 years. Which is why it is good we stopped default notability for non-Olympic medalists, but it is doing little good if we assert that there are all sorts of other default notabilities that can continue in the face of no Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I noticed that one from the discussion at the Village Pump; I've pinged BeanieFan to see if they found any significant coverage; I'll have a look myself as well, and if they didn't, and if I can't, I think I'll AFD it myself assuming you don't get there first. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Unlikely, this one a day AfD makes me have to wait a long time between them, I will not hit 24 hours until about 20 UTC. I also had a IMDb only sourced actor in mind for my nomination today, but I may have lost track of who it was. There are lots of under sourced articles on a whole slew of topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • One a day AFD? BilledMammal (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes it is a rule that was imposed on me years ago because I got mad at how the pro-football people were treating my AfDs on football players. I will admit I over reacted and should have been more calm. I think that was in 2017. Once in like 2019 someone opened an ANI on me because it was only 23 hours between nominations. It is insane how long this restriction has been held against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
          • It has been five years; it might be time to appeal? Although, I would suggest waiting till the Lugnuts discussion is closed to avoid overlap. BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Hans Martens is yet another redirect I made that was reverted without adding any substantial sources. The sources there are only sports reference and Olympia. No Sigcov at all. Also reverted by Lugnuts. How is his returning these articles to stub status without adding any Sigcov any different then his going around and creating new stubs?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Rudolf Markušić was also reverted with no Sigcov added. Another editor claimed he did several of these without getting reverted. This is starting to feel like a special hounding of me to stop me from doing this. Which seems likely, considering recently this same editor opened 6 AfDs almost siultaneously, failed to notify me about at least some of them, and in one of them said that my article on an elected state superintendent of education was in some way spam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Smartyllama: Thoughts on these recent redirect reverts, in case I am missing something? BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @BilledMammal: If Lugnuts is hounding JPL, then that's a behavioral issue, not a deletion/redirection/ATD issue, and I really don't want to get into that kind of drama. That being said, Lugnuts' conduct has no bearing on what the ultimate fate of these articles should be. If a redirect was appropriate before (and I agree with JPL that it was), it's still the appropriate solution. I can confirm however, that Lugnuts did not revert redirects that I created, and has !voted redirect on several Olympian AfDs created by other users. If JPL has hounding concerns, I suggest he take it to WP:ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Well, he keeps doing it. He is not adding any additional significant coverage. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
        • I am hesitant about ANI. Some people use it to attack the person who brings the nomination. It is also frustrating that Lugnuts has the audacity to claim that these deletion nominations are aimed at him. They are not. They are aimed at the huge overload of articles lacking Sigcov. Sigcov is the requirement of all articles. This is a function of him having flooded the project with permastubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
          • It's your call, ultimately. I'm not going to file a complaint on your behalf. But if you want a solution, I don't know what else you can do at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Smartyllama: Thank you, I just wanted a third opinion regarding notability. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I Understand, But Please Let’s Be Fair

I note from the TP of Lugnuts[6] that you have nominated a lot of their articles for deletion can I please ask that you soft pedal for now? Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is because this guy created so many articles it lead to a ban on doing so. They are junk articles, lacking in Sigcov. We have the clear consensus of an RfC that Olympians are not notable. No one is intentionally trying to pick out articles created by Lugnuts. Lugnts just single handedly created these perma-stubs, sometimes at the rate of 1 a minute, and something like 80,000 of them. People are actually going after the non-medaling Olympian structure, and we are doing it insanely slow by any measure. There is no reason to slow down. Wikipedia has way too many articles lacking sigcov period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Although not all the articles being impacted were created by Lugnuts. See Gösta Ölander. We will see how long that redirect stands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• My general impression is that roughly about half of the articles we have on Olympians, at least of those born in 1911, are created by Lugnuts. I have not been closely tracking, so that is a very rought estimate at this point. With the removal of granding all Olympians notability and limiting it only to medalists or those who can be shown to be notable in some other way, a majority of Olympians no longer meet our inclusion criteria. Yet well over 90% had articles before this change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• I don't check whether Lugnuts created an article before nominating it, and I'm not going to start. However, I am planning to slow down nominating articles for a short time, so the number of articles I nominate that were created by Lugnuts should also fall. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

José Pamplona

José Pamplona is an example to me of why "medaled with his team", does not seem to always be a reasonable inclusion criteria. He medaled but only actually played in 1 match in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nikolaos Papanikolaou (athlete)

For the time being I have decided to stop trying to redirect any article created by Lugnuts. I may nominate one for deletion today. I am not sure. Anyway Nikolaos Papanikolaou (athlete) does not even tell us where he was born. Considering how high a percentage of Greeks in the 1930s born before 1922 were born in what is now Turkey before the population exchange, and also how many Greeks moved from Egypt and Bulgaria in the early 1920s as well, this is an especially glaring lack of information point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vision therapy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Henrique Camarago

Henrique Camargo was redirected while I was in the process of creating the AfD nomination. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrique Camargo I explain why this is not at all a good target for redirection. It is a messy situation, maybe made messier by the fact the creator of the article who did this redirecting is Lugnuts, the same editor who a while ago accused me of using someone else as my proxy to nominate lots of articles for deletion, who admitted to deliberately going through a list of the articles I created to pick out ones to nominate for deletion as a revenge action, and who as recently as last week was reverting any attempt I made to change Olympic articles that did not meat the medal level and lacked GNG to redirects as was advised by some other editors. This preemprtive creating of a redirect seems very disruptive, especially since it removes the link from the article to the deletion discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly out of process, and I've reverted it on that ground; hopefully he will listen to the edit summary and stop boldly redirecting articles nominated for deletion. By the way, you should get WP:TWINKLE - it makes it much easier to nominate articles for deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"Partisan group"

Calling WP:FOOTY a "partisan group" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) is ridiculous, especially without any justification (other than you wanting an excuse to call any keep votes invalid). It's valid to notify a WikiProject, and it'll show up in that project's article alerts anyway, but your language against this WikiProject is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)