User:BD2412/Archive 029

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

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)

Deletion discussion closures

Try User:Evad37/XFDcloser. The script automates much of the process. f e minist 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)

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 ^[1]
- 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)

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

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)

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

[1]