Can you please provide input [| here ]. There is an editor canvassing other editors by pinging them in a discussion and a topic they have nothing to do with. These editors are also making edits while an ongoing discussion is happening on the talk page without contributing to the discussion. Thanks in advance. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I know you are aware that the List of municipal flags in the Czech Republic article is deleted for WP:NOTGALLERY but can it be recreated if all information about the flags are added? I had transferred the gallery to Wikimedia Commons and added information from REKOS (I had translate from Czech because the deleted article does not have a Czech Wikipedia page yet) and other sites of municipalities. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
If you intend to do that, I would suggest creating a draft and then submitting it for administrative review. BD2412T 00:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I noticed that you have been removing old warnings from IP talkpages. I have been operating MalnadachBot to fix Lint errors sitewide, many of which are in old IP talk pages. Due to this, there are many pages where my bot has fixed Lint errors, followed by you removing the page text [1][2]. This makes the preceding bot edit redundant. It will be great if we can coordinate to avoid unnecesary edits. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
creating a guideline to blank an IPs talk page after a certain time (either from latest TP activity, or IP's contribution), and then a bot for blanking such talkpages using these parameters would be a good idea. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. I volunteer to create such a bot task if there is consensus for it. Deletion of old IP talkpages used to be done years ago, but was stopped for some reason. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Deletion hides potentially useful edit history, as when a defunct occasional IP vandal returns after years of absence and returns to their previous patterns. Blanking is preferred because it reduces link load (the crudding up of "What links here" pages) and avoids confusion on the part of legitimate new editors editing from an old IP, and seeing a bunch of warnings apparently directed at them. When we switched from deletion to blanking, I had to restore-and-blank about a thousand IP talk pages that I had previously deleted. BD2412T 12:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Since this is a fairly staraightforward and noncontroversial task, I think it is better done by a bot. A cursory search shows me that there is at least 1.5 million IP talk pages without a block notice and has not received any message after 2013. Considering the number of the pages involved, I am thinking about holding an RFC at WP:VPR and submitting a WP:BRFA if there is consensus for it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been down that road without success, but it was several years ago, so perhaps times have changed. BD2412T 13:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot 13 for blanking old IP talkpages has been approved. Due to the sheer number of pages involved, I am running it on small ranges at a time in batches of 15-20 thousand pages in a run. The bot will be quite busy for the next few months and will remove a lot of outdated cruft. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, this will really speed the task along. Do you intend to start with the oldest/longest dormant pages? BD2412T 05:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
For the first 2 batches, I used all pages of range 1.% and 2.1% that were inactive since 10 July 2017 and not currently blocked. The date can be easily changed if necessary. There is a tradeoff here; I can fetch older pages and target larger ranges in a batch, or target a smaller range and get all pages in that range till exactly 5 years back. I'll try both and see which is more efficient. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I would just reiterate my opinion that there are least likely to be issues if we start with older pages, e.g. those that have been inactive for fifteen years or ten years. There will be plenty in those ranges to fill a batch. BD2412T 06:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Rushmore in popular culture 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.
This is a thoughtless nomination, and an insincere one given the lack of effort to examine the article. BD2412T 12:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Since you created this article, you are considered an involved editor. Please don't take action on this AFD. An uninvolved admin or editor can close this AFD. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 01:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I didn't take an action on the AfD, which remains open; I merely moved the page to draft space, which does not require a discussion to undertake. BD2412T 01:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to save this. I've left my review and tags. The good news is that I now believe this topic is notable, and we already have sufficient content for a stub. The bad news is that I still believe 95% of the current content has to be removed. But I think whatever articl emerges from this trial by fire will be much more useful to the readers than the older page (sometimes more is not better). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Naruto-Rushmore.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
{{OW}} belongs below {{Shared IP}}. Please don't remove those Shared templates, they're useful to admins. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Having been an administrator on this project for over 15 years, I am fairly well-versed in what is useful to admins. Templates on pages that have not been touched for many years, and from IP addresses that have not been used to edit for many years, are not actually particularly useful. IP ranges get reassigned from time to time, and the fact that a given IP address has seen no activity for multiple years suggests that information about it may be out of date. BD2412T 16:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
What determines when warnings are ancient and should be removed? I've been doing it manually when I see a lot of warnings over three or four years old when leaving messages for IPs.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
We have had a few discussions about this before (including one ongoing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC: Bot to blank old IP talkpages), and there is sort of a sliding scale. It depends how many warnings there are, and what sort. A good rule is that anything over five years old can be dispensed with. If there's a page with just one warning that's three years old, I'll remove it. BD2412T 21:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
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.
De-PRODed; per WP:DABMENTION, it is perfectly permissible to have a disambiguation page containing only links to redirects, if the name is mentioned in the target articles. BD2412T 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 805 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 852 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. Czechoslovakia was the original longstanding target of the term from when I created this redirect in 2014 until a few months ago when it was changed without discussion. BD2412T 04:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello. In answer to your message, I think the writ de apostata capiendo satisfies GNG. I think the best course of action would be to expand the article. If, after the expansion, you are still not happy, the article can be still be merged. I am still looking at the other articles. If they do not satisfy GNG, they should be merged to Writ or to another suitable target. (I have determined that chartis reddendis is actually a form of detinue, so could be merged there). Best regards. James500 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey, Cheatem & Howe (2nd nomination) 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.
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. Thanks for disambiguating the Junior backlog. --I dream of horses(Contribs)(Talk) 11:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, this was a fun one. BD2412T 18:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
for the comma issues you're fixing, of course, but selfishly because when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futsal positions, I ended up with hundreds of futsal players on my watchlist. I had gone through with a command-f to find as many of them as I could, but edits like this jabe helped my further pruning when they show in my watchlist. Thanks! StarMississippi 12:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Comma-spacing is unfortunately a perpetual issue, but here we are. BD2412T 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
BD2412, what is the proper manner of appealing the closure of an RfC? Seems like the closing admin of this RfC did not review the body of arguments presented in the discussion, calling it all a "clusterfest." There is much grounds for an appeal. Israell (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not something I have actually had to do before. We have processes for reviewing AfD and MR closes, so I would think that there is an analogous process for reviewing RfC closes. I am just not familiar with what that process is. BD2412T 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I believe WP:AN is the default venue for appeals of miscellaneous closures that aren't covered by the RM and AFD processes mentioned above... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru, thanks, that is some high-quality talk-page stalking. BD2412T 15:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11728 articles, as of 20:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Not to nitpick. But, that's not what edit summaries are for. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
There's no prohibition against it, and it lets page watchers see the gist of my argument without bothering to look at the whole page, which is useful. Why else did Wikipedia double the permissible length of edit summaries a few years ago? BD2412T 04:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s very easy to copy-paste one’s post into the edit summary. Doing this carries the benefit of having the post in the device clipboard, which can be easily used in case of browser crash, or site crash, or edit conflict. I used to do it all the time. One day, WMF increased the edit summary length to 1000 characters, and I started receiving complaints about my edit summaries taking many lines of their watchlist. After a few weeks, they reduced the edit summary length I think to 250 characters. Since then I have received no more complaints, and only one enquiry. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Diferent issue, but also re: summaries. This edit has no connection with the actual action. AWB or human issue? Just flagging in case you want to look into it. StarMississippi 20:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
It was an issue that I came across while on an AWB run fixing other issues, and I just didn't want to bother changing the edit summary for this one instance. BD2412T 20:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
gotcha, thanks for context. Have a great day! StarMississippi 21:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: I have converted it to a redirect to the disambigation page, The Centre (which includes links for The Center, as "La Center" is a transparent translation of this. BD2412T 18:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Njiru, James 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 until the discussion has finished.
@Melchior2006: Reverted, as neither PROD nor AfD can be used on redirects. The proper procedure would be to go through WP:RFD, where sortname redirects will be automatically kept as one of the most basic forms of required redirect for an article with a sortable name. If you want to go to the trouble, suit yourself. BD2412T 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Melchior2006: I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Njiru, James procedurally, as AfD was the wrong venue to nominate a redirect as noted above. Also note that even it were the correct venue, the discussion page was badly formed as it was created without the {{afd2}} template and therefore was missing several useful links, including one back to the original page itself--for future nominations, please more carefully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. You are welcome to nominate this redirect for deletion at WP:RFD, but I agree with BD2412 that it is highly unlikely that a resulting discussion will end in deletion. Thank you for listening. --Finngalltalk 17:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! The redirect seemed like unnecessary clutter to me, but if it's standard, then that's fine with me. --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi BD!—Hope all is well with you. As you've helped me out with this kind of thing in the past, I figured you might be able to again, if you have the time/interest. I've created articles for two music critics: Fiona Maddocks (just now) and Noël Goodwin (a week or two ago). They are both mentioned hundreds of times around WP, so if you're able to use that tool to link to them from these other articles it would be greatly appreciated. Best – Aza24 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Certainly, I will give it a shot. BD2412T 02:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I very much appreciate your putting together these articles. I have generally advocated for the principal that where there are sources upon which we frequently rely for articles, those sources themselves are likely notable, and to our benefit to document. BD2412T 03:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed completely—Critics (of music, or else) in particular literally spend their whole careers writing things that we can source on WP, so the least I can do is write something about them! Many thanks for your help with linking. Aza24 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Listing and photos of Mississippi Supreme Court judges here in page 20 might be useful? The only Sidney Smith judge I found on Wikipedia was the one from Georgia, for example. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Working through them. I used to get a hard time about including needed redirects but where they are absent it can sure be a bit of legwork to track down an entry on someone who went by initials. Another observation I have is that justices who preceded the establishment of the Mississippi Supreme Court are referred to as having served on it. This doesn’t make sense to me and I think it should be fixed. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
The state has always had a supreme court; it was initially called the "High Court of Errors and Appeals", but it is the same court. BD2412T 22:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The entries could be changed to say Missouri’s supreme court of the time. But it was not known as the Missouri Supreme Court initially and apparently wasn’t even the High Court of Errors and Appeals until later and kept that name slfor decades. I see editors write up colleges this way sometimes having people attend schools that didn’t exist at the time. I think it’s sloppy and inaccurate. No one can be a justice on the Missouri Supreme Court before it existed. Not trying to belabor the point so I’ll let it go. Thanks for all your awesome work! I don’t really understand why so lany of these entries are in draft purgatory. They need the attention and inprovements that come with mainspace and integration into the encyclopedia. Taie care. And thanks for all your help with my efforts. I had one I thought of asking you to help out on just the other day. So much to do only so many hours in the day. Party on. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Henry F. Pulitzer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello, BD2412. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Aviation accidents and incidents in fiction, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi BD, thanks for your “thanks”, and also for your great work disambiguating the links to the disamb page. I have been working on the same myself, but you seem to be doing a much faster job than me. Thank you. Please could I ask that you use only direct pipes, so for example here using [[Temple Mount|Al Aqsa Mosque]] instead of [[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount)|Al Aqsa Mosque]]? Otherwise the traffic assessment will be muddied – those pipes at the disamb page are supposed to be single-use, for the sole purpose of assessing outbound traffic at the disamb page. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Well that is kind of a pickle. You see, the disambiguation function on AWB pulls the disambiguation targets from the disambiguation page. This can be bypassed, but it is more cumbersome to do so. BD2412T 23:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah. That explains it – I was wondering why. How about a two-stage process, with the second stage being a run through of all the new links to the redirect page, correcting them like: [[Al-Aqsa Mosque (Temple Mount).Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello could you help me change the default colour of the political party I've linked above. I've tried to change but it seems I can't. It predominantly uses yellow as their choice. The code is # F4CB23. Thank you.154.70.0.223 (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is not my specialty. There are other editors who work more regularly with establishing party colors who would be better able to help you. BD2412T 02:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This page in Kiswahili was created, but not by me. Any idea why or if it is something that should cause concern? Atsme💬📧 10:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: No cause for concern, this happens to me all the time. Typically what will happen is that the edit history of an article that you have worked on will be imported to another Wiki, which will mistake that for you making a first edit to the site, and will greet you accordingly. BD2412T 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I moved the discussion from the NOR noticeboard for the reason in my edit summary. It seemed that the discussion of the issue there was too long, in comparison to most of the other topics on the noticeboard; there was also a risk that our editing of the noticeboard could overwrite a change another editor made on another topic between the time one of us started a respone in the edit box and published it. I thought moving was better than copying, so that neither of us had to update in two places. I didn't intend to hide your responses, and made clear that there was a longer discussion and where it had been moved to. I didn't change what you had written in any way when I made the move, except to insert an additional level of indentation on the Talk page. Maybe I should have transcluded on the Talk page instead of moving. I had no ulterior motive, but I apologize if it was inappropriate.
I'm also sorry if you think I'm wasting your time. I think it is a principled disagreement. I have assiduously cited authorities for the points I've made. I have explained that the court had a succession of seats between 1895 and 1971 because a succession of seats was constitutionally required by the Constitution of 1902. That constitutional requirement ended in 1971. The reason there was a succession of seats between 1971 and 2022 is because of the coincidence that there were no overlapping vacancies in that period, except in 2011; otherwise, there was only one vacancy at a time in that 40-year span. The question of succession in 2011 was answered by the General Assembly, who appoints new justices when it is in session. No one has answered the question of succession for 2022. The clerk can't answer it, OES can't answer it; it's like asking the Governor of (insert state here) whether the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as part of the Constitution. There is an entity with the legal authority to decide that question (and it's no state's governor); anyone else's opinion is an opinion, not a decision.
If Delegate Bell or anyone else I've asked at the General Assembly comes back with an answer, I will accept the answer. I have no vested interest in who between Russell and Mann succeeded Lemons or Mims. My only interest is that Wikipedia shouldn't take a side on the issue until it is resolved by someone who can resolve it. At the moment, my position is that we don't know. Senator Edwards agreed with my position: he doesn't know either; and if he doesn't know, how can we? I added the disputed tag to the article to reflect that there is a good-faith dispute about the issue; I left the summary of the dispute on the NOR noticeboard because I still think it's appropriate for impartial review. If I'm abusing Wikipedia's policies in some way, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvil (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
If the clerk of the court had said there was no succession of seats, would you have been more accepting of their ability to speak on the subject? We have an answer. If you can provide a source for the proposition that there is no succession (or the succession is the other way), please do so. BD2412T 00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't have gone down the road of calling the clerk's office because I don't think the clerk has the authority to answer the question. Sure, the clerk can have an opinion, but without authority her opinion is no better than anyone else's.
Maybe I can explain better why I think your position is flawed with an example. Virginia has two U.S. Senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. Kaine is in Senate Class 1 and he's up for reelection in 2024. Warner is in Class 2 and is up in 2026. Let's pretend Warner resigns effective September 1 to be Secretary of Commerce. Kaine, who has long-Covid (sadly true), retires for health reasons effective September 15. Governor Youngkin gets to appoint someone to fill both vacancies until a special election in November 2023.[1] On October 1, Youngkin announces that he's appointed Jane Doe to the Senate; On October 5, he announces that he's appointed John Smith. Youngkin doesn't say whom he appointed Doe to replace or whom he appointed Smith to replace. But if they both run in the 2023 special election, one of them will be running for 1 year, until November 2024, and the over will be running for 3 years, until November 2026. So knowing whether Doe replaced Warner or Kaine, ditto Smith, is important. Now, who gets to answer that question? Does Smith? Doe? Warner? Kaine? The Secretary of the Senate? The Parliamentarian? The Sergeant-at-Arms? No; each of those people might have an opinion, but only Youngkin can answer it. Only Youngkin had the power to fill the vacancies, so only he can decide. Does it matter that Youngkin appointed Doe earlier than Smith? Does that mean, without Youngkin saying so, that Doe filled Warner's seat and gets to run for a 3-year term in 2023 (and Smith can only run for a 1-year term), just because Warner office left first? No. The only thing that matters is who Youngkin says replaced whom. Everything else is opinion, without legal effect.
I have provided a source for the proposition that there is no succession: Senator Edwards, who would know if the General Assembly intended one to replace a specific retiree, said he did not know that one did. I have also provided a citation for the proposition that Justice Mann replaced Justice Lemons, as you requested in the discussion on the article's Talk page; the citation will be familiar to you. Glanvil (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Your proposition is that one person not knowing outweighs another person, in fact, knowing, which is not how information works. Do you have a source for the proposition that the clerk does not have the authority to answer the question? I have worked in the court system, and my experience is otherwise. BD2412T 01:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I have updated the List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia article's talk page and the original research noticeboard with information I received today confirming that Justice Mann replaced Justice Mims and Justice Russell replaced Justice Lemons, although the order of succession had nothing to do with the order the two new justices joined the court. I have removed the associated dispute tags, but I did not archive the original research noticeboard because you did not like it when I moved the discussion from there to the article's talk page. I think the issue is resolved and can be archived.Glanvil (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I am glad to have this resolved, and noted this on the board as well. BD2412T 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to let you know that when you're blanking old IP talk pages, such as this one, and adding the template {{OW}}, User:MalnadachBot apparently later removes that template and adds {{Blanked IP talk}}, (example here), which causes the bot to spend more time fixing a template. Is there a way you could solve this to save the bot time to do the more important job of blanking IP talk pages instead of simply replacing a template? Thanks. NytharT.C 18:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I can just add the {{Blanked IP talk}} template directly, which would save the bot the time. It wouldn't do much, though. Over the years, I have templated tens of thousands, possibly over a hundred thousand, old IP talk pages. BD2412T 19:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
When we use {{OW}} or {{Blanked IP talk}}? I think OW is still be used on shared, static IP addresses but Blanked IP talk is only used in dynamic IP addresses, I think. Thingofme (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
My expectation was that {{OW}} was being superseded by {{Blanked IP talk}} on IP talk pages generally ({{OW}} is also used on a number of registered user talk pages, where {{Blanked IP talk}} would be inapplicable). BD2412T 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
So should we merge OW and Blanked IP talk? Or OW still used for static IP addresses, maybe? Thingofme (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, "OW" would need to remain for use on registered user talk pages. BD2412T 00:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Registered talk page may be archived, not removed and templated. Thingofme (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
How do you keep track of your draft articles and edit them the DAY they are about to hit CSD G13 status? You may not realize how rare that is. Even experienced editors lose track of drafts they have created and once you stop getting those 5 month reminders, no one seems to remember that they were even working on draft articles since their edits to them are buried deep in Contributions lists. Kudos to you! LizRead!Talk! 05:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Liz, it some cases it's pure luck. I do note the ones for which I get a five-month warning, though. BD2412T 05:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I sometimes feel badly about deleting drafts for active editors but some of these editors are juggling so many drafts and main space pages that I think their deletion and requesting their restoration at WP:REFUND reminds them that these drafts are still out there when they have forgotten about them. I mean some of these editors have dozens ond dozens of drafts they have created. A different kind of editing than I do. LizRead!Talk! 00:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I have about 1,060 at the moment. BD2412T 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow! Talk about content creation! LizRead!Talk! 00:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel like based on that, especially for the deceased, they are to be included. Now, if the description is already very long or the information in the article is unclear, I tend to avoid. However, I have noticed many articles that have had those already in there before I have made it a personal project. I try to do around 250-500 a day, give or take some for make-up days. I can tone down the amount if it is needed. Red Director (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I have no problem with it. I was just curious, as it has been coming up in my watchlist a lot. BD2412T 19:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey, one reviewer has suggested that I archive all the sources in this featured list nomination. Do you know any bots that can help? Thanks in advance. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Okilani Tinilau. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Avilich (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I was surprised to see this edit. Is there some reason that I haven't realised why that isn't to be regarded as offering proxy editing to help an editor evade a block? JBW (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@JBW:WP:PROXYING specifically allows for edits that are "either verifiable or productive", where the editor has "independent reasons for making such edits". Conveying the thoughts of the creator of a longstanding redirect in a discussion proposing to change the target of that redirect would present no verifiability concerns, and would clearly be productive to the extent that the editor who created the redirect many years before would be able to offer some insight into why it was created as such. In any case, I did not offer to make an edit on behalf of the blocked editor. I offered to convey their thoughts, which (had they expressed any) I would have paraphrased in summary form, along the lines of I asked the creator of the redirect, who is currently blocked, and they [agree/disagree/have no objection/have no opinion]. No language in the policy on proxying bars such a conveyance. BD2412T 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't see any way of reading "have independent reasons for making such edits" as meaning anything other than independent of the blocked editor. I also don't see how your making an edit to "convey [the] thoughts" of a blocked editor, where they have expressed those "thoughts" in response to an offer to make that edit to convey their thoughts, as anything other than making that edit on behalf of that editor. However, there are far bigger things to worry about. JBW (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Having a well-informed discussion on the best use of a redirect is an independent reason in itself. BD2412T 20:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Internationality, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
