User:BD2412/Archive 050

{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px"
 * class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #cef2e0; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there place on Wikipedia for an article on willful political ignorance, specifically construed?
In reading and watching news recently I'm seeing a vast number of examples where the interviewer practically begs the subject to accept results on a number of political issues (like the 2021 Attack on the U.S. Capitol) but finds zero takers. I think we're beginning to see sufficient sourcing appearing where an article on the subject of the U.S. phenomenon of willfully choosing to deny reality for political ends might be created. Not having an article on it or limiting coverage to specific examples seems a hole in the pedia. Disagreement? Discussion? I'm going to start gathering sources for cites. BusterD (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure this phenomenon has been noted in sources. I am not aware of an article covering it, so start a draft and ping me on the talk page and I'll have a look. BD2412  T 02:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wargames
Hey there! :) After a snow-keep AFD on Operation Grenade (game) yesterday, Draft:Lee at the Crossroads must have felt like a safter option - do you have any sources that could help get that draft published aside from the single independent review from Phoenix? BOZ (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have nothing at the moment. BD2412  T 00:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ogre (board game) has been nominated for GAR - not the biggest deal in the world to keep it as a GA, but never hurts to have the recognition. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources to help me get any of these drafts published?: Ancients (3W, 1986), MBT (Avalon Hill, 1989), Tomorrow the World (3W, 1989), 5th Fleet (Victory Games, 1989), Rise and Fall (Engelmann, 1989), and Shell Shock! (Victory Games, 1990). BOZ (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19
Looks like a satisfactory article to me. I would suggest that the people listed in notable instances section as victims (foisted by their own petard) might be a bulleted list and give a few biographical details where there is no article on them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A bulleted list is a feasible alternative to the table, which I moved to the talk page for discussion. I agree that the draft is satisfactory for mainspace, and will move the draft. BD2412  T 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I sympathize with your efforts. You're dealing with an onslaught of editors who are ignoring/resisting our "purpose" here, which is to document the sum of ALL human knowledge, as long as it's found in RS. They are forgetting that "not censored" is also aimed at what they are doing. We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated. AfDs are often attacks against GNG: Articles that clearly pass GNG are nominated for deletion, and the reason often turns out to be a hodgepodge of dubious arguments that collectively violate our "purpose". While no editor can be "required" to create an article or to make an edit, they certainly should be sanctioned if they get in the way of the creation of an article that passes GNG. This kind of extreme (actually very common!) deletionism is wrong. We should aid the creation of articles and content. We're here to build, not destroy.

Our job (purpose here) is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of any controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and censorship seriously undermines that goal.

Because Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, another objection to deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. We try to build content, not break it down. Imperfect content is not removed, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.

Wikipedia isn't just another encyclopedia. It should be unlike all others. It is the Internet Archive of knowledge. If a piece of knowledge is notable enough, an article should be created for it, or it should at least be mentioned in an existing article or list. We need to be super-inclusive. I have an essay which deals with how NPOV deals with biased sources, and it touches on these subjects: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.

Here's an interesting article about a woman's COVID-19 experience. (She is not an activist or anti-vaxxer.) I'm not suggesting it be used in your article, but the article has some interesting thoughts. Your article should prioritize activists (IOW, people who, by their own design, are WP:Public figures), and especially note those who have the same attitude as this woman. Their deaths should not be hidden and be in vain, especially when they want their story to be told. -- Valjean (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There has indeed been a surprising tendency of editors to read BLP as meaning that you can't convey reliably sourced information about living people. BD2412  T 21:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Question aren't there too many of them? Making a list of every perverse or stupid person in the US or the world is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia .I agree with a previous comment that the particle should give coverage of public figures, prefereble public fogures who are both notable on other gorunds, and prominent in this.  DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has said otherwise. On the other hand, the list that has been compiled to this point (not in the article) has a fraction of the entries of, e.g., List of 19th-century baseball players or List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. BD2412  T 17:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! January 29: COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon - Online via Zoom
--Wil540 art (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the invite, but I am not much of a translator. BD2412  T 19:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of work to be done on the English language articles as well. See our "goals". --Wil540 art (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * No offense-with-an-"s" taken whatsoever. BD2412  T 05:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Doc Ock
Hey BD2412, you may recall that you moved Draft:Otto Octavius (film character) to Otto Octavius (film character) a couple weeks ago. The thing is, there are now two talk pages for the same article, one located at Draft talk:Otto Octavius (film character) and the other at Talk:Otto Octavius (film character). I'm not sure whether a merge, move, histmerge, or just-leave-it is the proper procedure here, what do you advise? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the discussions were discrete, I went ahead and merged them. BD2412  T 04:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG
I have a question, and I thought I'd just ask you directly. Countless federal judicial inboxes have the appointer styled as Joe Biden well there's an editor (Therequiembellishere) that is just linking to the president(s) directly and not the judicial listing saying it goes against WP:EASTEREGG. Thoughts? What's the proper styling format? P.S. I would ask in the project but I don't always get the warmest reception there so.... Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that the "appointer" is the person, which is generally how it goes for non-judicial appointees. By the way, have a look below this post on my talk page. BD2412  T 21:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, that's for non-judicial appointees. But when you're talking federal judges, is it acceptable to link to the list in the "appointer" field? And what exactly am I supposed to look at, the post below this one? Snickers2686 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like the answer you are looking for is that it is okay to pipe to the list, I'm just telling you that it's not what I would do. I don't think that the piped link is strictly "unacceptable", but it would be nice to have consistency across articles, so a more formal discussion may be in order. As for looking below, more like the 72 posts below this one, almost all of which are state supreme court justices that will be on the block in a month. BD2412  T 17:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite without consensus
This edit creates a serious problem. Can you please look into it?  Atsme 💬 📧 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it is not an area that I feel I understand well enough—I don't know the significance of a distinction between a "dog breed" and a "dog type". BD2412  T 20:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to the last version before the dispute began, but I am not comfortable delving further into the subject matter. BD2412  T 20:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But you do know that editors are supposed to abide by consensus, and that's my point. The merge discussion wherein he wanted to say "...the Bull and Terrier became the Staffordshire Bull Terrier" closed as no consensus which means he could not add it to the article - or any other article for that matter, because all the descendants of the bull and terrier hybrid from 200 years ago are not a single breed any more than Homo erectus is Homo Sapien is Elvis Presley, and the rest of us can go to hell. SMirC-chuckle.svg Is this not a case of IDHT, or TE, or whatever you call not abiding by consensus?  Atsme 💬 📧 21:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I reverted to the pre-dispute version of the article. BD2412  T 21:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BD2412, I appreciate you don't feel comfortable adjudicating this but since you have involved yourself I will ask you to review the merger discussion and the discussion at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and honestly say that all of the sources and all of the kennel clubs are wrong. Not only have I been accused of all sorts in the last fortnight, but the other editor has even attempted to to disrupt other articles I am the primary editor of, Talk:Golden Retriever. Cavalryman (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not going to start questioning SN54129's close of the merger discussion, or running off to other discussions. As I noted in the WP:FRINGEN discussion, it is a bad sign when one editor feels that they must respond to every oppose in a discussion. BD2412  T 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

History merge
Thanks for the comment on ULC. I know we have interacted on a few pages so hopefully it is okay to come here and ask for help as an admin. I have been working on overhauling pages in my userspace and now I am stuck. I didn't think about the edit history when moving the edits back to the page. I do not want to do a bulk copy paste as editors won't see all the changes made. Is there an easy way to do this? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no substantial overlap in the edit histories, I'll take care of it. Just let me know the pages involved, and I'll add it to my long list of things to do. BD2412  T 16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I know you do a lot here so I appreciate you taking the time. Here is one. It is related to another page that you did substantial cleanup on I believe. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers! BD2412  T 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. Okay. That was fast. I can see how admin tools can come in handy at times. Thank you again. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Any chance I can get help with another one? This is one that is related to one you did a rewrite on and I tried to style it similar. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - please bear in mind, though, that I have edited literally hundreds of thousands of articles, and done rewrites on at least a few thousand of those. I once calculated that, for any given Wikipedian, there is a one in six chance that I have edited an article that they edited. Those chances will, of course, be dramatically higher if the article has something to do with U.S. state or federal courts, judges, or lawmakers, or if it is a disambiguation page. BD2412  T 04:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I noticed as it was next on my list but I see it was done. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethan Skemp
Do you see anything that could help with Ethan Skemp which is at PROD? BOZ (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have anything. BD2412  T 21:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Plant-based diets
Hi BD, I understand your concern but please take the time to actually read the removed section and my explanation on the talk page. The section is a clear violation of WP:NOR and doesn't even deal with human diets. I am planning to add more and updated material to the article from PubMed in the future that really deals with the diet and the scientific research. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the article talk page. Cheers! BD2412  T 04:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

ENnie Awards
ENnie Awards was just PRODded and unPRODded - I will see what else I can find for that one. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no particular insight into this topic. BD2412  T 04:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a template created by you
Hi BD2412, I recently moved a template created by you: to Template:Infobox U.S. presidential elections by state, as this will be a more concise and proper title for the function that this particular template serves. I also nominated the resulting redirect for deletion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12. I wish to invite you to the discussion if you would like to support/oppose/comment regarding the deletion request. Thank you very much! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. BD2412  T 17:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Labiodental stop (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Labiodental stop (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * 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.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to be routine. BD2412  T 04:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Condescension has been accepted
 Condescension, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Condescension help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!  DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seventeen years. BD2412  T 20:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Judge Jackson
Perhaps this needs to be disambiguation page given Ketanji Brown Jackson. I'm sure there are other judges with the name. Of course K.B. Jackson will be known as Justice Jackson if confirmed for Supreme Court, but news reports now refer to her as Judge Jackson. older ≠ wiser 22:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We have very few "Judge Foo" disambiguation pages, but this would be the rare case that would support that. I note that we have generally deferred to human names over titles, as with Justice Smith (a relatively minor actor), with Justice Smith (disambiguation) separate therefrom. BD2412  T 22:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

MJ's albums discography
Hello, one user has asked me to omit the abbreviations in the section heading during this review. Can you please help me do that? If you don't mind can you please help me show how to add the trans- title parameter on ref 60 so I can do the remaining ones? Thanks in advance.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look shortly. BD2412  T 17:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what it is that needs doing. BD2412  T 18:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing the abbreviations in the section heading and adding the trans-title parameter on ref 60. Please have a look at this edit. Hope this will shed more clarity.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Phil Yates
Hi there! Do you have anything that might help Draft:Phil Yates get back into article space? BOZ (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid nothing comes to mind. BD2412  T 21:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

hatnote question
Recently, I ran across a hatnote with something like "for the politician, see somebody (politician)" when there was a dab, so it should have said "for other people named somebody, see somebody (disambiguation)". It there anything in existence that detects these? MB 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know we do not. It might be worth asking at WP:VPT if someone can generate a list of comparable instances. BD2412  T 21:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to contribute to the page on Draft:Divine intervention
I didn't feel comfortable messing with the text of the article itself, so I left some thoughts on the article's TALK page. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * bear in mind that "the text of the article itself" is an initial hodgepodge thrown together to have some kind of start to encompassing the topic. Feel free to mess away. BD2412  T 05:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've done my best. I think it is an improvement, even if it isn't the final word. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is sufficient to move it to mainspace, and I have done so. BD2412  T 07:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Super Genius Games

 * Do you see anything more for Super Genius Games? BOZ (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the thing to do here is to merge it into List of role-playing game publishers, which appears to be what was supposed to be done with parent company OtherWorld Creations, though I find no mention of that in the target article. BD2412  T 05:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"Ukrainian Orthodox Church" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ukrainian Orthodox Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no facility for the discussion. BD2412  T 21:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Last Tango (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Last Tango (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * 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.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection, the target page has been de-disambiguated. BD2412  T 17:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Chief Justice
As an administrator you should know better than to revert when a subject is under active discussion on the talk page. Wallnot (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The name of the office is the name of the office. Has it been proposed to retitle the article itself? BD2412  T 21:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * the article itself does not need to be retitled; the article title is capitalized because it is not modified by a determiner. In the lede sentence, the job title is modified by a determiner, so it is lowercase. Again, see the guideline or my user page. Wallnot (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the article talk page. You are mistaking the title for the role, which is a different thing. BD2412  T 21:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of United States federal judges who died in active service for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United States federal judges who died in active service 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 Articles for deletion/List of United States federal judges who died in active service 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. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have responded in the discussion. This nomination is unfortunate, as it is not founded in policy, and would erase a great deal of work to curate information that is clearly of interest to researchers who have written in the area. BD2412  T 19:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Springnuts (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
Hey BD2412, you might be interested in this RM discussion. You can find context here and here. (Sorry I didn't "ping" you sooner.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

AFD date issue
I am unsure why your close on 18 March was dated 22 February? GiantSnowman 15:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly because I copied the formatting from a previous close. BD2412  T 16:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Some page moves
Hello, BD2412,

I monitor the broken redirect page and I'm seeing some strange page moves recently. Like Talk:Hollywood/Santa Monica, Dallas was moved to Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles/Santa Monica, Dallas but the article, Hollywood/Santa Monica, Dallas was not moved. Talk:Hollywood/Highland station was moved to Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles/Highland station but Hollywood/Highland station wasn't moved. For some reason, talk pages were moved, without leaving a redirect, but the articles were not. Could you look into this? I assume that you still don't want these old redirects preserved or you would have left redirects when you moved the pages. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That may have been a misinterpretation on my part. We discourage "/" in titles because it makes subpages, so I assumed that pages like Talk:Hollywood/Santa Monica, Dallas were actually subpages of Talk:Hollywood, which was moved per consensus. Sometimes there are lengthy discussions on subtopics that get archived that way. I'll move these back. BD2412  T 20:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting Deletion Discussion for Brett Perlmutter
Calling to your attention that this discussion was closed by user:Stifle only seven hours after you relisted. On deletion review discussion page, Stifle states he would be happy for the AFD to be speedily reopened and relisted for another week, with a striking of duplicate votes. It appears that Stifle may not have realized that this was only relisted for such a short period.

As the original relister, can I ask that you be the one to relist to allow time for more meaningful discussion?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The close just needs to be backed out. The relist template is already on the page. BD2412  T 17:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood
I'm not sure this move discussion had enough participation to justify creating more than 10,000 dab links that will now need to be fixed. It's not clear that all the support voters intended for the dab page to be moved, either. Ruбlov (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion had more participation than is usually seen in a move request, and the consensus for moving the geographic location was clear. The incoming links, while relatively numerous in the first instance, will be cleaned up quickly, as they easily fall into patterns clearly intending either the location, or the industry. I would add that in cleaning up a few thousand of these links so far, I have found substantial errors. That is, a substantial percentage of links do reference the film industry independent of the location (for example, references to "Hollywood films" being filmed in other states or countries). BD2412  T 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I happened to notice because Philip Seymour Hoffman had a dab link to Hollywood, which revealed that the original target was incorrect. Thanks for fixing the links, I wish more people at RM would take it into consideration when page moves cause large amounts of work for other editors. Ruбlov (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, doesn't this move technically violate A move request about moving X to Y should never be closed in such a way as to require page Z to move if Z wasn't listed in the original move request per WP:RMCI? Ruбlov (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That certainly doesn't reflect longstanding practice with respect to disambiguation pages, which are strictly speaking not actually articles at all. I'll update the guidance accordingly. BD2412  T 00:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I suspected that disambiguation pages might get special treatment. Ruбlov (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Agioi (disambiguation); Agios (disambiguation); Hagios (disambiguation)
A tag has been placed on Agioi (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * 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.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

A tag has been placed on Agios (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * 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.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

A tag has been placed on Hagios (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * 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.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Furious Love" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Furious Love and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to be resolved. BD2412  T 17:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonas March Tebbetts has been accepted
 Jonas March Tebbetts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Jonas_March_Tebbetts help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing! BD2412 T 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Trademark redirects
...User:Steel1943/Trademark redirects ... Enjoy! (There's also a considerable amount of redirects that contain "(c)", "(C)", "(r)", "(R)", and all variations of "(TM)", but since a lot of them are false positives since they are chemical formulas, if I try to filter those out, it's going to be a while.) Steel1943  (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to wait for the current discussion to close and then nominate more batches, with the outcome for the first group as a precedent. BD2412  T 01:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you had already noticed: Your mass nomination, Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2, was closed as "delete". Steel1943  (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did, and I do plan an making another mass nom for more of those soon, but I got caught up in another redirect issue. It seems we have hundreds of uncategorized redirects from taxonomic author abbreviations to the people they represent. Most of these are fine (e.g. Schellenb. point to Hans Conrad Schellenberg, and that string will likely never mean anything else), but I find a handful of them questionable (e.g. Cav., Wall., Thur.); Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 13, now under discussion, is a test case. BD2412  T 06:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely understand what you mean. I feel like while editing on here, I jump into one rabbit hole just to fall into another rabbit hole. For a while, I was working on using regex to find some WP:RDAB issues in titles, and now I seem to be working on various articles related to medieval weaponry. And by the time I get out of the second rabbit hole, the original rabbit hole has by then grown into a crater. Wikipedia ... it never ends and keeps exponentially growing in all aspects. Steel1943  (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Benjamin Brown (actor) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benjamin Brown (actor) 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 Articles for deletion/Benjamin Brown (actor) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a somewhat more complicated solution. BD2412  T 18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Just my opinion
As close as I've ever seen to a mike drop on Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try to have a moment, once in a while. BD2412  T 18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Perlmutter
Hi user:BD2412. First and foremost: I made the mistake of voting multiple time on the AfD, and I am very sorry; it was truly because I a new to Wikipedia and did not know the rules! I learned my lesson (the hard way!) I could not leave this comment on the AfD page because I am temporarily banned (it expires tomorrow). So I am asking for your help.

As you know, I am new to Wikipedia, and created my first article Brett Perlmutter. It was nominated by for deletion by a user called user:SadHaas, who was a wp:SPA and has since deactivated his/her account. Sadly, I think this was because SadHaas is the same user as Ksoze1 who is pushing adamantly for the deletion of the article. In fact, the last edit of SadHaas (which we can no longer see because the account has been deleted) was the same day that Ksoze1 reactivate his/her account since it was dormant since 2017 [] in order to keep editing the AfD. I am not an expert at these forensics, but this seems evident that they are the same person. Now the nominator of the AfD no longer exists on Wikipedia!

Furthermore, Ksoze1 revealed a certain bias against the subject of the article on the talk page of ExtraordinaryWrit []; it seems to take the form of a grudge because they went to the same high school, according to Ksoze1.Lobsteroll (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of revisiting this subject. Cheers! BD2412  T 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters
Hello, you were the closing admin on Articles for deletion/Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, which you closed as a "technical deletion", or redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. I have since moved the page back to its original title, List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. At the time of its redirection, that list had a grand total of 4 non-primary sources. This AFD was conducted as part of a sweep; all of the other monster lists from the other editions were deleted except for List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters which was closed as "no consensus" at AFD. At the time of its closing, the second edition list had only 3 non-primary sources as well - in the 2 1/2 years since that time, the sourcing on that list has expanded significantly and I believe there are now dozens of non-primary sources which were culled from existing monster articles, or found by me or other users, and I credit the bulk of the work to User:Daranios. What we want to do is move the 1st edition list to draft space, populate it with source information copied from the 2nd edition list, and move it back to article space once we are done. It doesn't need to be undeleted since you redirected it, but I wanted to know as the closing admin if we have your blessing to proceed? BOZ (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the restoration of content previously deleted due to sourcing issues once sourcing has been resolved. Cheers! BD2412  T 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Gracias, I will get to work on that. :) BOZ (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:BD2412, I put a good amount of work into Draft:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (see link above for how it looked before I started), so what is your feeling on it now? I also was able to get all of the other edition-specific lists into draft space and did a comparable amount of work on each of them. BOZ (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some apparent formatting errors. I would say clean those up and submit for review. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer asks for more citations or something. BD2412  T 02:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing those errors, User:BD2412. Although, I'm not sure if the reviewer suggesting we merge the list into "Monster Manual" and then having a split discussion was an outcome I had anticipated. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Omba Mokomba
Thanks for your help on improving Omba Mokomba. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I had come across it in the state in which you initially found it, I would have been inclined to delete as well. Cheers! BD2412  T 21:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for BD2412 magic
If you have time, could you possibly work your magic for linking Zachary Woolfe in articles? He is cited quite a few times, so I fear it would take too long for me to do manually :( – Aza24 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you know I love a challenge. BD2412  T 01:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is done, I believe. BD2412  T 04:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Splendid, thank you!! – Aza24 (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

cite news/cite web template
Hi BD2412, several similar edits you made cropped up on my watchlist so I noticed you are adding links to multiple citations across articles. The cite news and cite web documentation both indicate that author= or its aliases should not be wikilinked but should use the |author-link (or author-link1 etc) parameter. I think it's the same for every citation template. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that requirement—I've been linking things this way for years, and it technically works, but I can easily do it the other way. BD2412  T 16:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Video game awards (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Video game awards (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * 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.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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.
 * I don't know why I always get notices for redirects that I only made while gnoming. BD2412  T 00:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Engl.
"For example, if you were a pastry chef, it might be obvious to you that "Napoleon" refers primarily to a desert." LOL. Maybe if you were an Egyptologist.... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Grrmph. Fixed, thanks. BD2412  T 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly concerned that this will have an effect on me while I still draw breath. BD2412  T 22:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @ BD2412 Just come across this (while posting a request below). :On side note don't you think expelling low key admins may indirectly increase populist pressure in decision making processes.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 100 edits in a 60 month period? No, I don't think that will affect much of anything, other than to clear the boards of editors who are actually gone. BD2412  T 05:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop
You have no reason to go the ANI report. I did nothing wrong except stop you from circumventing consensus. All you're proving by doing this is that it doesn't matter if I hold talk page discussions or not, everyone else can circumvent the rules. You talk around me, not to me, because you know what you're doing is wrong--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The ANI reports in which you have been involved demonstrate a troubling pattern of behavior. They are particularly relevant given the warnings given to you at those times that this behavior should cease. BD2412  T 20:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And what are those "troubling behaviors" exactly? Opposing something you like? CreecregofLife (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)