User:BD2412/Archive 029

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

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

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

Moving page Publiseer

Hello, I created a page Publiseer as a draft and tried moving it into the article space while I was done. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have the right to move a draft into article space because I am relatively new to Wikipedia. As a result, I have reverted the page to its previous draft state. Can you help me move this draft into article space? I noticed that after I moved it into article space, it still had the meta robot tag that says noindex or nofollow that makes it impossible for search engines to crawl the page.--Adamk36 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have posted the appropriate template to request review. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion closures

Try User:Evad37/XFDcloser. The script automates much of the process. feminist 01:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks! bd2412 T 01:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Steve Down Wikipedia Page Help

Hello,

I have been trying to contact a Wikipedia admin for a few days because I have been tasked by Steve Down to help figure out his Wikipedia page. I noticed you recently edited his page a few days ago. I am new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate your help in getting this figured out following Wikipedia’s guidelines. After spending some time looking into his page, it looks like people may be trying to slander his name in order to possibly harm him or his companies, and I do not feel that is what Wikipedia is meant for.

The reasons why I feel this way are due to large portions of his page being heavily weighed on small and very specific events. After doing some research I found Wikipedia’s “five pillars” of fundamental principles. The neutral point of view says to explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. However, the initial summary of his page is mainly focused on minor events, many of which are very recent and are explained with great detail, which is giving undue weight to these events. There are also other sections on his page that are given undue weight, such as the “Investor Dynamics Corporation” section (2.1.5), which is heavily repetitive and over-explained. The majority of this section is directly quoting the entire text of the cited sources, rather than giving a concise summary. Lastly, the section under his picture lists “criminal charge” and “criminal penalty”, but the cited sources don’t state any criminal charges or penalties ever occurred (there are only allegations, and nothing is said about criminal charges nor criminal penalties).

After reviewing the edit history, it appears that there has been one editor (Anon1-3483579) over the last few weeks adding this information and creating the undue weight. Viewing this user’s contributions page, I found that for the last three weeks they have been intensely focused on the Steve Down page (having made only one edit to another page). They have also been adding very recent events only a day or two after they occur, and have added them to the initial page summary so this information is immediately and easily visible.

For these reasons I believe people are using Wikipedia with the wrong intent, especially with there being ongoing investigations and lawsuits currently underway. In light of this, what are the guidelines as far as possibly getting the page temporarily removed, or is it a possibility to get help correcting the page to fit into Wikipedia’s guidelines? Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. I really appreciate you taking the time to read this and help me get this resolved as quickly as possible.

You can email me at aaron89537@gmail.com if you'd rather communicate through email. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon89537 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have moved excessive material from the lede to a more appropriate location in the article, and removed excessive quotes from legal documents. bd2412 T 19:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I recently made an edit to the Steve Down page to remove text that wasn't accurate and wasn't backed up by the cited source, but this edit was very quickly undone within a half hour by Anon1-3483579. This user also posted on my talk page a notice about editing with a neutral point of view, though I believe I have remained neutral. If you can, please let me know what the next course of action should be, as I really want to get this article as accurate as possible while following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I really appreciate your help and the edits you've made to the page so far, and thank you for looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon89537 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

    Hello Anon89537 and BD2412,

I believe it would be helpful to add my input on the edits made to the page, as my username is referenced here. I really do appreciate the edits of the both of you. I added a majority of the new content which is currently in the article. I did this, because the article seemed to inadequately describe one side of this biography. Note most of the page's content has previously been removed for violating Wikipedia's rules regarding advertising and promoting oneself. These edits were previously done by the staff of Steve Down.

Anyways, I added content in the hopes that anything incorrectly done would be corrected or removed by admins, in perpetuation of the principles of Wikipedia. However, all of the content on the page is currently accurate and cited, including charges and penalties displayed in the bio section, which Anon89537 removed. I believe, if citations are reviewed, all the information is correct and well documented and reported upon. The work done by BD2412 involving reformatting of the overstated content and the misuse of the direct quotations was very helpful, by the way. I sincerely appreciate the work you've done here to correct the mistakes I wrote there.

- Comment added by Anon1-3483579 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have not researched the article subject to know whether this material is WP:UNDUE. Other editors may engage in such an examination in the future. bd2412 T 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018

Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Userbox Wikimania 2018 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have proposed a reasonable compromise with respect to these. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Cracow move

Hi,

While I appreciate your rationale, I think that your move of this page was mistaken for several reasons.

1. You partially discounted my opinion because I was new, and because In ictu oculi mistakenly believed that I was a sock puppet of a banned user.

2. Several incorrect assertions were made by those who supported the move. Keneckert said that Piotrus is a "native Polish and English speaker", when Piotrus's userpage reveals that he is not a native speaker of English. Nihil novi claimed that Cracow is an "anachronistic medieval hangover", when it is still used for the modern city by many reliable sources, including the Oxford Dictionaries and many academic works published in the last decade.

3. There was widespread conflation of "Krakow" and "Kraków". The first one is widely used in English, and is about even with "Cracow" in academic and reference works. The later is barely used, and a lot of the supporting editors used the prevalence of "Krakow" for the modern city to argue for "Kraków" for the 19th-century Grand Duchy.

Best,

Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken as to the first point. I made no mention of In ictu oculi's sockpuppetry charge, and gave that aspect no thought whatsoever in giving your opinion less weight. Your participation in this discussion was the fifth edit made under your account, all within days of its creation. That makes it a very new account. As for the other points, there is no question whatsoever that there is actual use of all the possible names, so none of them were impermissible. If you still disagree with my closure, you can seek review at Wikipedia:Move review. bd2412 T 03:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you for your help. Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi BD2412 when considering the consistency argument, did you include Free City of Cracow in your thinking? The move has made the Grand Duchy article inconsistent with that, and there was an RM in the other direction there just a few months ago. Personally if I had been closing this RM (and admittedly I'm biased, since I voted "oppose") I don't think I would have seen a consensus to move, given the powerful counterarguments of WP:COMMONNAME and consistency with the above named article. If nothing else, the opening sentence of the article itself now looks really odd - The Grand Duchy of Kraków was created after the incorporation of the Free City of Cracow into Austria on November 16, 1846. Please could you reconsider the close? Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the most significant consistency is between supertopics and their subtopics. For example, we have Bovine respiratory disease as a formal name, but the supertopic is Cattle, so subtopics are named things like Cattle feeding and Cattle in religion and mythology, not "Bovine feeding" and "Bovines in religion and mythology". bd2412 T 11:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Grand Duchy of Kraków

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting page protection removal

Hello. There has been an AfC request at Draft:Blaakyum, which needs to be moved into the mainspace. I am unable to accept the submission, as the page is protected (you did this on 6/8/16). Could you look at this? Thank you. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, cheers! bd2412 T 13:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Metal Archives Was Responsible For That Gerne i listen To Them Not heavy metal They are Metalcore Metal Archives Wants To Protect The Gerne Of A Band That Belongs To Metal Archives Url Was on All that remains Please Change Error Gerne Thats Not On Metal Archives Dethsix (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a discussion that needs to be brought to the article's talk page. bd2412 T 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

New discussion at Donald Gary Young

Hey there, would you mind looking at the last several edits and the new talk page section over at Donald Gary Young and weighing in? I'm pinging you and Jytdog as you were the last two editors discussing the article. A Train^talk 23:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I just got back from a trip, and have a stack of things to do, but I will be able to look at this tomorrow afternoon. bd2412 T 12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Birka female Viking warrior

On 9 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Birka female Viking warrior, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Birka female Viking warrior has been described as a shield-maiden similar to Brienne of Tarth from Game of Thrones? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Birka female Viking warrior. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Birka female Viking warrior), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 02:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, glad to hear it! bd2412 T 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	All your AWB edits. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Bobherry! bd2412 T 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure Concern

I wanted to inquire as to the closure of SharkLinux article. I acknowledge your reasoning and it is true my edit history is short and topic specific. I wonder if, regardless of the account history of the keep votes if you considered the arguements put forth or just dismissed them due to the editor who had posted them? The initial nomination resulted due to sources not being found by the nominating editor. Several of the arguements in favour of keep provided a variety of sources that would not have been easily found with an internet search. I even went as far as to scan pages out of multiple magazines for reference. In the interest of protecting a great deal of time invested in my contributions to this article Ive spent many hours over the last week studying the policies surrounding notability and inclusion and fully believe this article should have easily passed requirements especially after the additional sources were indexed for added reference. Marpet98 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have refunded the article and moved it to Draft:SharkLinux; I have locked the mainspace title, so that it can not be moved back to mainspace without administrator approval. You can continue to work on it there, and submit it for approval through the usual submission process. Be aware that absent solid, reliable sources demonstrating notability, it will not be accepted, and will eventually be deleted. bd2412 T 23:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate you doing that. A question if I may; what is the proper way to include sources that may contribute to the demonstration of notability but arent a direct source for information in the article? I read about the primary/secondary sources for notability requirements but it was also stated they simply had to exist, not be referenced in the article. I have no concerns about the notability itself - its one of the most notable distributions in production; it has been featured in magazines, online publications - in several cases front page covereage, radio shows, countless Linux focused websites in at least half a dozen languages, the focus of workshops, the inspiration to a spinoff version and at least one high-profile radio review can be downloaded on iTunes. When you also take into account being 3rd highest ranked Linux OS its an easy sell and Im quite surprised notability was even a concern. All that aside, if the information included in the article is taken from 2 out of 100 sources how should I go about referring to the other 98? Marpet98 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sources always need to be referenced in the article if they are to be of any significance to the question of whether the article is kept or not. bd2412 T 03:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• This seems to contradict that
  • While it is true that notability can be proved by sources not in the article, you won't get the article moved out of draft without sources included in the article. bd2412 T 17:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

---

South Korean presidential election, 2017

Hi, just an FYI in case your using a program or something that needs a tweak your edit to South Korean presidential election, 2017 broke an image and a number of templates. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be configured so that ambiguous links can be fixed without breaking the template. Unfortunately, it turns out that we can't always rely on their doing so. bd2412 T 16:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hijacking a thread

Re [1]: sorry, absolutely couldn't resits the temptation of following up on the the uncanny similarity between the two numbers. I did consider starting a new thread immediately following, but that would have exactly mirrored the one above, and I think we would agree that this would have been worse. Thank you for your patience. – Uanfala 21:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am probably a bit testy about it because it has happened a few times recently (by other editors, not you). We'll leave it at that. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Paris Burning?

Hello
I just saw your note on the talk page here; I haven't come across that one before, so I'm a bit thrown. The Request Move bit is clear enough, but are you saying that the incoming links need changing before the move can be requested? And if it gets knocked back they'll all have to be changed back again? The incoming links are a bit unclear at the moment, in any case, as a lot of them are template links; the templates themselves have been changed, but I won't be able to see what's left until they clear, which can take a few days. Swanny18 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the way to do it. Ideally, have the discussion first and reach a consensus to move/disambiguate (the fact that there is more than one meaning does not by itself demonstrate the absence of a primary topic). Once consensus is achieved, fix the links, and then move the page (or move the page and fix the links basically at the same time by fixing the templates and then making null edits with AWB, which updates the pages without having to wait for the templates to update in them). bd2412 T 00:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agreeing with bd2412's implicit opinion that before moving a long-established article (without an obvious case for a lack of a primary topic) then an RM is the best way to go. However, before or after moving an article, you're under no obligation to fix any incoming links. Of course, if there are links within navigational templates, it's highly desirable to fix them, and you should definitely review the redirects and make sure that after the move they all go where they're supposed to. It's also always a good idea to at least glance through the incoming links from articles and see 1) if the are uses of the term that are not represented on the dab page; 2) if there are any links that look difficult to disambiguate: you know the subject so you're in the best position to fix them. Of course, you can have a go at fixing them all if you wish to! – Uanfala 01:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:FIXDABLINKS specifically says to fix the links before moving the page. Emphasis in the original. It has been that way for years. bd2412 T 01:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. But I'm a bit surprised at the strong language there. It definitely isn't in sync with the rather gentler recommendations at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Post-move cleanup and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moves of disambiguation pages to primary topic titles, and I've never seen a move being reverted or challenged because of a failure to fix incoming links. I think that if we came up with such a formal requirement, we'd loose most of the the editors who carry out the already thankless enough tasks of tidying up topic structures. – Uanfala 01:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

For undiscussed page moves, I enforce this quite sternly. bd2412 T 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again:
I have taken your (and Uanfala's) advice and lodged a request move for this; it's here, if you wish to comment. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!  Swanny18 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		for having the intestinal fortitude and patience to assess and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Truedson Demitz, an AfD three times longer than the United States Constitution. A Traintalk 14:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 14:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

International trucks

Sir? Could I please get you to re-consider International Trucks for a moment? I am talking at Andrewa's talk page right now. Please? Sammy D III (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not the person you would need to persuade; a consensus of editors participating in the discussion would need to come to that conclusion. bd2412 T 20:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sir, I don't think you understand. I just want the discussion not closed until I can finish with Andrewa's talk page. He and I are discussing a consesus right now. Please look at Andrewa's talk page. Just don't close quite yet. I am discussing with an admin, another admin supports. Please!!!Sammy D III (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is already closed, andwas closed after being open for an extended period. Based on that, I will not reopen the discussion at this point. bd2412 T 21:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pleeeasse. Pleease check with Andrewa's talk page . PLEASE. I have to go for an hour, at least remember me??? Sammy D III (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. If you disagree with the closure, Wikipedia:Move Review is this way. Otherwise, in due time, a new discussion can be initiated. bd2412 T 21:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks

An editor has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

I am trying to get this right. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion continues...

You have posted at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#WP:INTDAB. It seems to me that no WP:CONSENSUS has yet been reached. If something like a consensus is reached, perhaps you could invite a previously uninvolved WP:ADMIN to take a look and to close that issue down, one way or another? No hurry, a week or two should be the minimum period for discussing a change to such a major guideline. Narky Blert (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Involved at Donald Gary Young

I had been treating your work at Donald Gary Young as admin action to enforce BLP, but by now you are completely involved and I will treat you as any other editor. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fair - but don't take that as a license to engage in blanket reverts and the like. bd2412 T 18:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate use of your admin rights. Please self-revert. If you do not I will bring this to AN and I do not believe your action will be supported there. Please save us all the drama. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I will, but it is entirely appropriate to preserve the current state of the article pending resolution of disputes. I will trust you to propose edits on the talk page rather than implementing changes to the longstanding status quo ante without consensus. bd2412 T 18:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable suggestion if you reverted to the version before your changes. It is unreasonable and inappropriate to use protection to protect your version, and probably even worse to try to extract a promise to preserve your version prior to removing the inappropriate-in-the-first-place protection. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The last stable version of this article prior to the current series of discussions would be the one prior to October 8, which existed as such since your last edit on March 27. However, that would entail removing all the New Yorker material, which I don't think is necessary. The current version is basically the version before those edits were made. That is the version that is appropriate to maintain until disputes are resolved. bd2412 T 19:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am almost out of patience here. I am now bringing diffs:

• You boldly made a bunch of changes.
• I reverted to the ante, saying that if you feel strongly you should bring an RfC (due to the lack of support for your position at talk)
• You reverted that and suggested I go bit by bit
• I started to do that, and actually had edit conflict with you when you
• removed a source that i was about to move
• the you protected the article

You will not have a leg to stand on at AN.

Please remove the protection now.

Please consider walking away from this article, as you have lost your judgement here to the point of abusing your tools. You are thoroughly involved, and you at least acknowledged that this was a "fair" statement above. If you do accept that, this means you should accept that you are not in a position any longer to declare what the "appropriate version" as an uninvolved admin might be.

Please take a breath and think before replying. I really would rather spare us all the drama. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the situation. The status quo ante period would be the stable period prior to October 8, and that would be the case no matter who was assessing it. I am agreeing with you with respect to most of the content of the article, and am completely open to having a discussion and obtaining consensus as to the areas where we might disagree. bd2412 T 19:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for unprotecting. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was literally protected for only five minutes; it has been unprotected for pretty much the entire time that you have been asking me to unprotect it. bd2412 T 19:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

William Littleton Harris

Hi-there is a draft for William L. Harris (judge); that needs to be merged in an existing article about William Littleton Harris who served on the Mississippi Supreme Court. I noticed this when I started an article about William L. Harris who served in the Illinois General Assembly. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi-I also started an article about Ted Z. Robertson who died recently and served on the Texas Supreme Court, There is a draft about Ted Z. Robertson under Ted Robertson (justice), Again my apologies for the confusion. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help-RFD (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. We have literally thousands of drafts in various states of completion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States state supreme court justices - it is always a great help when we get some movement towards resolving those! bd2412 T 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Allen3 draft

Hi,

I agreed to take over the draft of Isaac Taft Stoddard that Allen3 had started. It is now at User:MB/Draft8 (where you made a few edits). I was just about finished with it last night when I found that there already is Isaac T. Stoddard. Allen3 was aware of it - he edited that article and his draft on the same day. I'm not sure why he didn't just improve the existing article. The draft is ready to move and is far superior to the existing article. There is nothing that needs to be merged. I could put the draft at Issac Taft Stoddard and redirect Isaac T. Stoddard (I don't believe there is a clear predominance of either T. or Taft in usage). Or we could put it at Isaac T. Stoddard (with a history merge).

I was planning to DYK it as a new article. But if it is an existing article, it won't qualify anymore. I can't get it to a 5x expansion with just the online sources I can access (it needs another 3164 characters).

Your thoughts? MB 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I would move the the existing article to Issac Taft Stoddard, then move the draft to Isaac T. Stoddard, with the other title redirected to it. I wouldn't bother with DYK. I don't know that there's that much more to write on the subject. It may be worthwhile to inventory Allen3's other drafts to see if any others are expansions of existing topics. bd2412 T 23:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I did the first move. But I can't move the draft now over the redirect currently at the old article. Since you are familiar with the situation - can you do it. Otherwise I will have to go through RM. MB 01:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. bd2412 T 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

1. I kept digging on this article and have expanded it enough to qualify for DYK. It's already been nominated and reviewed (with Allen3 listed as co-author).

2. I looked at several of his other drafts and there are corresponding existing articles and conclude he was doing outlines and documenting sources for improved versions of the articles. Some of the existing articles are poorly referenced, so even if his corresponding draft was shorter than the existing article, it was a start on an improved version. I'll continue to work on these, and perhaps add his work to the talk pages, improve the articles, or whatever else may make sense on a case by case basis (as time permits).

3. User:Allen3/Camp Grant was already deleted as "just an infobox". I'd like to double-check that there wasn't anything there useful to the existing article Camp Grant Massacre. Could you restore it somewhere (my userspace would be fine). MB 04:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, it is now at User:MB/Camp Grant. bd2412 T 11:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with your draft articles

When I find missing info, do you want me to add it to your draft articles? --RAN (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! They should all be marked as open drafts for anyone to edit - if they are not, please add that also. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the edit

thanks for the edit to draft article - would you be able to move page from draft to article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanAronin (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think your draft meets the criteria for inclusion. It would be better to delete it. bd2412 T 11:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks, but five years of what? bd2412 T 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see. For working on that project for five years. Thanks again! bd2412 T 17:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Five years of that I noticed that you are Precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Raymond Myles

Hello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Raymond Myles".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it. I think a case could be made for the notability of a state court judge who presided over some notable cases, and was murdered outside his own house, but I would agree that notability is marginal and don't have time to further attend to the draft. bd2412 T 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirPower closed as NC

Huh... was there any reason not to relist? When you closed it, the last post was still fresh (less than 2h old). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion had already been relisted once. bd2412 T 11:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but there was some activity going on, and two relists is nothing unusual at AfD. I am not saying it was wrong to close it, but relisting seems to me a superior option (worse case, no new comments come before the end of the new relist period, and the same close applies). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The article can, after a reasonable time, be nominated for deletion again, to the same effect. bd2412 T 16:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Bull running) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bull running, BD2412!

Wikipedia editor Markdask just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

refs need detail

To reply, leave a comment on Markdask's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mark^Dask 21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose it is technically true that I created the page, but only as a redirect - someone else made it the article it is now. bd2412 T 21:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable Judges

Thanks for the information. I disagree obviously, but I will never win this one.--Wlmg (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The basis for notability is thoroughly spelled out in the guidelines. In this particular case, however, a few minutes of searching Google News hits per WP:BEFORE clearly reveals the notability of the article subject. bd2412 T 13:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox journal, and the spurious links to DAB pages it creates

An FYI, because I've just seen a page where you had deleted the journal abbreviation. There is now a thoroughly usable fix - add |bypass-rcheck=yes to the infobox. See Template talk:Infobox journal#Bypass ifexist when page has a (disambiguation) redirect. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is good to know. bd2412 T 20:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Appointer or Nominator

Note I posted the following to the user indicated, but I am going to copy this to several other users for their reference. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A previous edit summary of yours (User:JoeM3120) read as such, "Federal judges are nominated by the president and condfirmed by the Senate, not appointed.". Your statement is in error from both a Constitutional and statutory point of view. There are THREE Constitutional steps. 1. Nomination, when the President sends the person's name to the Senate. 2. Confirmation (i.e. advice and consent) of the Senate is given. 3. Appointment. Once the Senate consents, the President APPOINTS the person to office by granting them a commission which is evidence of their appointment. The Senate's consent does NOT put the person in office and the President can, if he wishes, decline to appoint the person once Senate consent is given. It is the act of the President in appointing (granting the commission), that actually puts the person in office, NOT the action of Senate in giving advice and consent. Therefore, appointer is the more appropriate field and all arguments to the contrary are clearly in error. Additionally, both the Constitution and all federal statutes clearly use the word appoint. I am not going to revert at this time to avoid edit warring, but I intend to push this issue further in other venues. Safiel (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and have posted accordingly on that editor's page. bd2412 T 22:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] → bd2412 T

to

[[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] → bd2412 T

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed - cheers! bd2412 T 20:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Page flooding

Hi BD2412, you are flooding watchlists and recent changes with minor cosmetic issues (your lint cleanup) - how many more of these do you plan to do? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

About 4,000. I can have a bot do them instead, if that would relieve the flooding problem. bd2412 T 20:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please for that volume, especially if this is easily repeatable. There are several discussions related to WP:LINT cleanups going through bot talks now as well. While it is not 100% clear which lint priorities should be tackled, using bot flagged accounts have much more support that non-bot flagged accounts for that classification in general. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. bd2412 T 20:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi BD2412, Not moaning but was it really necessary for you to fix all of your sigs ? ... My entire watchlist is now filled up with your edits .... –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I switched to a bot doing the task, so those edits should be hidden going forward. I was told above that my signature is "causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors", which sounds like something that needs to be fixed urgently. @Anomalocaris: Is this a problem? bd2412 T 21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    • All bots still show for me (Having just looked at my watchlist I have to physically tick the box to hide them but without being funny I shouldn't have too), About 2-3 of my old sigs were using the font html however as far as I'm aware there's not any issues (Ofcourse my sig in about 5-10 years come would probably look mish mashed but it's not something I'm overly bothered about), As I said I'm not moaning but because the edit summaries go to 2 lines it kinda makes things hard to read if that makes sense, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok, task stopped for now. bd2412 T 22:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I was about to say to stop this unnapproved bot task from running. If you want to resume it, file a WP:BRFA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• BD2412, thank you for not only fixing your signature on this page, but working to remove lint errors it has caused in the past.
• Xaosflux: Thank you for suggesting automation of the task of lint removal. But, see Headbomb's note above.
• Davey2010: I believe that known lint errors should be fixed, with a few exceptions, such as where the error is used intentionally as an example of what not to do. Users with watchlists need to pay attention to the signal and ignore the noise, and saying, "Waaah! you're making a lot of noise!" is not a valid reason for someone not to improve Wikipedia. By the way, I don't know if your signature looks mish mashed, but it's not causing any lint errors.
• BD2412: The obsolete font tag error is considered low priority, so I wouldn't say it's urgent. I have been notifying users of it in the hopes of reducing the creation of more lint errors. I am searching primarily for the related and high-priority Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links lint error, and while I'm about it, I often find Obsolete HTML tags, and I inform users of both. Of about 25 users that have fixed their signatures at my suggestion, as far as I know you are the first to attempt to clean up the mess globally, to which I say, thank you for your industriousness!
• BD2412: I agree with Davey2010 that the edit summary doesn't need to be so long. How about something like, "edited signature to remove lint errors"?
• Headbomb (cc: BD2412): You're right, bots are supposed to go through an approval process before being deployed.

—Anomalocaris (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• I meant a sig I used from 2011-2013 were using the font thing ...., Did I ask them to stop ?, No!, I simply objected to them doing this and it's a valid objection to make, If this was article fixes then I'd bite my tongue and bear it but in my eyes flooding my watchlist for the sake of amending a sig is silly (imho), thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: my suggestion that if this needed to be done it should be done under a bot flag was never intended to bypass the BRFA process - just that it would only be appropriate for such a large edit run to be done via bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have been happy to finish the entire run manually, but that seemed to cause greater watchlist problems for others. bd2412 T 00:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Naima Mora for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naima Mora 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/Naima Mora until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for your work on Seneca Haselton!

Owlsmcgee (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, but User:Billmckern really did the heavy lifting on this one. bd2412 T 17:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I cannot overemphasize how much I appreciate your diligence as one of the best lint traps on WP. Keep up the good work!! Atsme📞📧 22:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Proposed deletion of Admissible evidence

The article Admissible evidence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is an unnecessary FORK from Evidence, which covers the topic, save the case citations.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Clearly a subject matter expert, with the right references at hand, and quick on the draw. Rhadow (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	of continued common sense and industry. Well done. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BD2412. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Moving pages from draft section to mainspace

@BD2412 I am fairly new and trying to get the hang of Wikipedia rules. I saw you made some edits to a page titled Bobble Keyboard in the draft sections. Any reason pages like those stay in the draft space and not the main space? Does an experienced admin like you move them or review them?

One other question - if a page has been deleted because it was written incorrect (not as per guidelines), can it be reattempted?

Thanks a lot