User:BD2412/Archive 056

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

(Thanks to Alan Liefting, via BMK)

This user prefers to communicate
on-wiki, rather than by email.

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

046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059

A barnstar for you!

		The Discussions for Discussion barnstar
		For being helpful and wise at a little ol' noticeboard forgotten by many. jp×g 01:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, my friend. I'd rather the Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion noticeboard be un-forgotten! BD2412 T 01:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Article Charles Steen

Just a note -- I had already left in the first hyperlink for the Atomic Energy Commission. Just deleted subsequent ones. Jkgree (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed. Thanks for the notice - self-reverted. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to understand Wikipedia

Hey,

you just moved the article [Draft:39th Young Artist Awards] to draft. Thanks for this. I added some references.

And now - so sorry to bother you with this - I don't know, what the next steps are. 🤔😬

Appreciate your reply.

Palim.Palim.99 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Tip: how to display double square brackets in edit summaries uninterpreted

I noticed this edit of yours at Bryan Garner, where you used the idiosyncratic form '[[B. A.|' in the edit summary, presumably in order to avoid rendering the link and thus hiding the brackets, had you including the matching end brackets. If you want to display double brackets unrendered and uninterpreted, as if enclosed in <nowiki>'s, you can do that by breaking up the double-brackets with a zero-width space character between them. So, code this:

• [​[B. A.]​]

in an edit summary (or here) to get this:

• [​[B. A.]​]

And if you want to eat your cake and have it too, then you can do this:

• [​[​[[J. D.]]​]​]

to get this in the summary, linked, but with visible brackets:

• [​[​J. D.​]​]

Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Mathglot: The edit summaries for disambiguation fixes (or disambiguation-like edits like this one) are automatically generated by AWB; I have nothing to do with that platform's use of an idiosyncratic form. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see; good to know. Thanks for that, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Can't help but notice your recent editing activity, where you've been changing links from "Vaccine hesitancy" to an article you created, "Anti-vaccine activism"—often at a rate of several articles per minute. Have you checked the sources of each of those articles to ensure your edits are in line with their cited sources? Because "vaccine hesitancy" and "anti-vaccine activism" are two very different things. Are Novak Djokovic and Robert De Niro proven "activists" of any kind? You should be extremely careful when editing the articles of BLPs, especially when dealing with a topic so controversial. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Homeostasis07: Yes, the link fixes are contextually correct: "Djokovic stated he does not associate with the wider anti-vax movement"; "De Niro has stated that he is not anti-vaccination, but does question their efficacy". There is no "vaccine hesitancy" movement, and questioning the efficacy of vaccination is functionally the definition of being vaccine hesitant. Both subjects are stating that they are not involved in anti-vaccine activism, despite their personal hesitancy. BD2412 T 01:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Robert De Nero does not line up with the cited sources or article prose. "De Niro has stated that he is not anti-vaccination, but does question their efficacy" does not support him being described as an "anti-vaccination activist", but seems to entirely support "Vaccine hesitancy". Keep in mind these were only two of the nearly 400 edits you've made linking your article to hundreds of other articles over the last 24 hours. I suggest you find consensus for these changes before you proceed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: You appear to be saying that DeNiro denying that he is "anti-vaccination" means that he is, in fact, an anti-vaccination activist. BD2412 T 01:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-vaccination" and "anti-vaccination activist" are not mutually exclusive. Considering this sophistry, I kindly suggest you self-revert your last several hundred edits. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I fixed several hundred errors which described anti-vaccine activism as "vaccine hesitance", which is definitively not the same as being "anti-vaccination". If you disagree with this, please feel free to elevate this to the appropriate noticeboard. BD2412 T 02:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Non-free biographical images

Hello, BD2412.

A lot of these categories, like Category:Non-free biographical images published in 1938, popped up as empty categories today and it looks like you created them. Were you going to put {{emptycat}} tags on them? I assume you don't want them tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion. Just checking. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: I plan to fill them all in fairly short order. We have over 25,000 images in the supercategory, about a third of which have publication dates, so I expect that these categories will be well-populated within a few days. BD2412 T 00:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hold myself back from tagging them. It's a challenge for me. But I think it's only me that this is an issue for, no one else monitors empty categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

As I was driving around doing some IRL stuff today, I was thinking that I really should drop you a quick note to say "Make sure you have something to put in each of these new categories as you create them, because some of my fellow gnomes keep a sharp eye out for empty categories and tidy them up at lightning speed" but Liz beat me to it! Try to find at least one file for each empty category ASAP; Wikipedia functions best when the gnomes are kept happy and calm. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not worried. At this point there are only about a dozen and a half with no image, and I'm only up to filenames starting with "Abdul". BD2412 T 04:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the process of putting one file in each empty category. It should take ten more minutes. You may find this sort of search helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert of GF edit as minor without explanation

I noticed you reverted my edit [1], marked the edit as minor and didn't explain why in the edit summary. Per Help:Minor_edit: Administrators and rollbackers can semi-automatically revert the edits of the last editor of a page; all such rollback reversions are marked as minor by the wiki software. The intended use of the rollback feature is for cases of vandalism, where the act of reverting any vandalism should be considered minor (and can be ignored in the recent changes list).. Are you really sure my good faith, factually correct edit (staying close to source) was vandalism? AncientWalrus (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus: It has been explained to you multiple times that you should not be editing the article due to your stated relationship with the article subject. By continuing to edit the article after being informed of this, and after acknowledging being informed of this, you appear to be engaging in a boundary-pushing exercise to see how much you can "get away with". In short, it is clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to build a general-purpose encyclopedia. BD2412 T 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• The original point here: I really don't want to waste our time but I don't see how your response addresses my concerns re your WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Please clarify.
• Based on things raised in your reply: Unless I misunderstand you, you have not used your administrator rights to issue an article ban to this end. If such a ban was in place I would of course respect it. As there is no such ban as far as I'm aware and because I a, I'm not sure how I am supposed to engage in boundary pushing. I am not attempting to "get away with" anything: I edit in line with policy according to my understanding thereof, including the policy on COI.
• Furthermore: As you keep bringing up COI and your demand I don't edit GISAID, I would be more than happy to get this reviewed by independent editors at the appropriate venue. Unfortunately it does not appear like we can reach consensus.

AncientWalrus (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been an administrator on this site for nearly twenty years. I have seen every means that conflicted editors employ to make an issue of something other than the conflict at hand, and I will not be drawn into such tactics. With respect to your conflict, specifically, WP:COI is very clear: "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead". This is not a personal imposition tailored to you specifically, but a statement of the general policy of the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 22:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, it is you who is bringing up things other than the point at hand: your usage of admin tools.

I am well aware of the COI policy. I have stated many times that I am not conflicted. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject. Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. I am not employed by GISAID, nor am I a competitor nor an opponent. I have no financial conflict. I am simply one of tens of thousands of users and in that sense a subject matter expert with regards to the platform. If being a user of a platform represents a conflict then no Wikipedia admin should be allowed to edit the Wikipedia page on Wikipedia. Nor should anyone be allowed to write about the city they live in. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Rollback is not an admin tool. Characterizing it as such is a distraction. BD2412 T 23:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the imprecision. Rollback is a privileged tool granted to admins by default and others may get it on request. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Gilman has been accepted

Donald Gilman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 04:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sara Griffiths

Hello, BD2412,

I was looking at this draft as it was due to be deleted, CSD G13, before an IP editor edited this week. And I noticed that even though the article had been around for more than a decade, you moved it to Draft space. This doesn't follow current guidelines that state only newly created articles or articles that had been through AFD and draftified should be moved to Draft space so I was wondering if there was another reason here that I'm missing. Although it's not stated, some editors draftify articles where they think paid editing is involved but I don't think that that was the case for an article this old. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: The article was PRODed in 2014, and should have been deleted a week later, but somehow got missed and lingered with the PROD tag for eight years. When I came across it, it should have been deleted, but I figured that I would de facto restore it to draft space to give it a last chance for someone to take it up. I don't think there is any criteria under which an elapsed PROD can remain in mainspace under such circumstances. BD2412 T 05:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Um no

If a page of a marginally notable individual has been deleted at afd by their request, you shouldn’t be recreating it without a DRV first. This was a shocking action, although I’d assume you didn’t realise when you recreated it but you really need to undo this now and go to DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Spartaz: I have re-deleted the page for discussion, although I believe that it fairly easily qualifies under WP:RECREATE, given that the article was deleted in 2017, and more numerous sources can now be found discussing the subject. I was indeed unaware that the subject does not want an article, but even so, if they continue to engage in notability-generating activities such as publishing books and well-cited articles and trying to keep their work in the public eye, that will not go well for them. BD2412 T 18:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you and I would ask you to take a little more care in these cases in future. Your comment about not going well sounds unnecessarily ominous. I hope you aren’t creating these articles with some ulterior motive against the subjects? 19:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, I was unaware that the subject didn't want an article. I have no animus against the subject; my motivation is that notable subjects should have articles, and the notability of the subject does not hinge on their preference. This one is on the lower end of my interest and is now taking up an inordinate amount of time I would much rather be investing in finishing Draft:Sending and Draft:Intercontinental Correspondence University. BD2412 T 19:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  You would have understood the background if you had gone as far as to read my closing statement on the AFD leading me to conclude that you undeleted this without any due diligence.

  You are the one beating this poor donkey and we're misrepresenting my request at another forum. For a low interest article you are the one creating yourself the work.

  Colour me unimpressed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Spartaz: Read the caption of the image at the top of this page. BD2412 T 20:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I think you already used enough of my time over this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)