User:BD2412/Archive 049

It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

(Thanks to Alan Liefting, via BMK)

Status: Active. bd2412 T

Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412

Archives

By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):

Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th

Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

---

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):

001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015

016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030

031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045

046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058

FYI

Regarding this. FYI I have been fixing bare URLs for over 6 years. I manage to check each page when I am done and fix the problems that BHG is ignoring. Speaking as someone who has much the same WP:ITIS as she does I understand her desire to rack up as many edits in a day as possible. I also feel that it is worth my time to be as thorough as possible in my work. She does not. I am not posting there due to unpleasant interactions with her in the past. It is likely that this is unpleasant for you to have to read so please feel free to remove it at your discretion and I hope you can forgive my venting on your talk page, but, will certainly understand if you can't. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC).

It is, nonetheless, an arduous task, and a net benefit. BD2412 T 22:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I know it is arduous - I've done tens of thousands of them. It is also worth doing them correctly and not causing unnecessary work for others. MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Acceptability for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Acceptability is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acceptability until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Colin M (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have responded in the discussion. BD2412 T 05:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete

Can you please delete this per G6:WP:GAN/I#R2.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Done BD2412 T 16:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Broken table

Can you please help me fix the broken table of the video albums? It would be great if you can. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done BD2412 T 20:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Deletion of articles on Wikipedia

On 6 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that deleted articles on Wikipedia may be "salted" so that they cannot be recreated? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deletion of articles on Wikipedia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Deletion of articles on Wikipedia), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That's extraordinary. Just when we think we can't be more impressed with, and thankful for a contributor, here you go and put deletion on the mainpage after all. Shouldn't we completely revalue people who "delete" the mainpage? BusterD (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,103 views (608.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2021—nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For informing the general public how we delete articles. Amazing work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! BD2412 T 01:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Impersonator

Hello. You recently blocked this account Mohmood20 [1] for a period of 31 hrs but this account needs to be blocked indefinitely as the user is trying to impersonate me and vandalizing pages in trying to jeopardize my account. I believe its the user Aj Indiana [2] who was reported by me for Edit warring and was blocked indefinitely on 5 November 2021. Seems like he created a new account impersonating me in trying to jeopardize my account. Even going as far as redirecting his page to mine. [3]. MehmoodS (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Mohmood20 has been blocked indefinitely for impersonation. MehmoodS (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Good to hear that this has wrapped itself up. BD2412 T 16:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Restoring CSD:G5 articles

Hello BD2412,

I wanted to ask if you could explain the reasoning behind the restoration of G5-deleted pages Antonio F. Díaz and Anacleto Medina‎. You wrote: "G5 is not a suicide pact". Could you explain what that means? Additionally, could you explain why you chose to restore the pages unilaterally, instead of going through the DRV process? Thanks, Pilaz (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I am in the midst of a months-long project to create disambiguation pages for similarly-named generals, and these articles are on my lists; it is necessary to have them so that the most complete set of potentially ambiguous meanings can be provided to readers who come across an unexpanded reference to such a person (i.e. a source that says that "General Foo" did something without specifying which "General Foo"). G5 is not a mandatory basis for deletion. It is a permissive basis, but not a requirement, and should be used with discretion rather than as a mindless exercise. It does the encyclopedia no good to delete neutrally written articles on qualifying subjects, and it does me no good to have red links on disambiguation pages. As for the DRV process, what would be the point of asking myself on a message board to restore a page, and then granting myself that request there? BD2412 T 18:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for shedding light on your current work. As for G5, you are right to remind that deletion is a may rather than a must, but as you'll surely have noticed I have only used G5 for biographies lacking credible claims or coverage justifying notability. I've kept all the officeholders susceptible of passing WP:NPOL and other major figures passing other SNGs. The reason for this is because I was going to submit them all those failing the GNG to AfD anyway, and I am confident that all but a few would have been deleted. All were created by a blocked user attempting to make Wikipedia their personal genealogy website (SPI), which is not what Wikipedia is about, and who used Google Books to refbomb their original research with namechecks (at best). G5 also has deterrent value, and we on Wikipedia get to decide what to keep and what to delete. With respect to General Díaz (who qualifies for NPOL), I applied WP:TNT based on this essay. As for DRV, I'm going to apply the same philosophy as you did for G5: just because you can avoid going through DRV doesn't mean you must. And unlike DRV, unless I am mistaken, there is nothing that explicitly allows you do so unilaterally, so DRV should have been the preferred venue regardless. Besides, Wikipedia is based on consensus, and as an administrator you have a duty of accountability to the rest of Wikipedia, and not hide under cryptic explanations such as "G5 isn't a suicide pact" . With that being said, I wish you the best in your disambiguation work. Pilaz (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pilaz: I do appreciate your efforts and your motivations. While the identified sockpuppet may have had less noble motivations, I would strongly prefer that deficient articles be tagged for their deficiencies first, and materials worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia be kept to the greatest extent possible. BD2412 T 20:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I actually hadn't thought about tagging said deficiencies before going through G5. I'll try my best to apply your recommendations in the future. Pilaz (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, just a heads up: there is a chance I may nominate Anacleto Medina for deletion after I run a deep search for sources this week. I'll be sure to ping you if I do. Pilaz (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As for the DRV process, what would be the point of asking myself on a message board to restore a page, and then granting myself that request there? Well yes, but it's a widely accepted norm that an editor involved in a discussion (including the nominator) should not close that discussion. I do think it would have been prudent to either discuss undeletion with the admin who originally performed the deletion(s) or open a DRV discussion (to be closed by an uninvolved admin). Colin M (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but I was not involved in the discussion in any capacity (nor does it appear that there was any actual discussion). I merely noticed the red links after the fact. BD2412 T 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that if you were to open a DRV discussion, then you would be involved in that discussion, hence why it wouldn't make sense for you to close said discussion. Colin M (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hyam Maccoby

I translated into Hebrew, thanks !!! המאו"ר (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)