User talk:BDD/Archive 23

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of French supercentenarians
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of French supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Aaj Kal
The page you've deleted as per the discussion on May 31 has be re-created by the user User:Krimuk2.0 Hope you'll take necessary action.-- Joseph  💬  10:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Balancierhebelkupplung
"Thanks a lot" for deleting Balancierhebelkupplung now I had to find de:Balancierhebelkupplung again. Give potential translators a chance. also Peter Horn User talk 00:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The English translation would be Balance lever coupler. Peter Horn User talk 01:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Translation could also be Equalising lever coupler Peter Horn User talk 01:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter Horn. These pages were deleted after unanimous support for deletion after more than a week at a deletion discussion that you were informed of (it's possible a bot archived your talk page before you saw the notifications). While I appreciate your work to translate pages from other Wikipedias, those sorts of links are live and suggest to readers we have content here on the English Wikipedia where we don't. In the short term, that deletion discussion should provide links to the other pages you need. In the longer term, I'd recommend listing such pages in your userspace, where the notes will be helpful to you without being exposed to all readers. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll gather things there. Peter Horn User talk 15:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't yet have a userspace as such. Would I need to create one? Peter Horn:Userspace

Alternatively could these pages be listed on "request for translation"? Peter Horn User talk 15:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (ping) "Userspace" means not a separate namespace altogether, but anything with "User:" in it. You could list them on your main user page, or create a subpage of anything you like, e.g., User:Peter Horn/Translation. See WP:UP and WP:UP for more information. And yes, you could list these at Pages needing translation into English. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

2020s in film
You deleted that article in 2015, per this RFD, since the article was created too far in advance. With the 2020s coming up in a few months, I figure we're probably close enough to get the article started. I'm going to pattern it after 2010s in film. Feel free to re-delete if you like. Useight (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My, how time passes! I don't think it's too soon. :) --BDD (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Please comment on Template talk:Senate of Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Senate of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7
Hi ,

The above seems like a great, and easy, non-admin close. I don't see your dab draft, though. What should the target dab article be titled? That way you, and/or me, can add in your draft post-close.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  17:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Disregard. I found it on Minneapolis station. I was looking on the RfD log date page. Smart. Is that what you guys normally do when consensus is to disambiguate? Doug Mehus T · C  17:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the most common way of presenting a draft disambiguation page, though note that sometimes the closer does the work of making the disambiguation page, especially if it's just a few topics clearly mentioned in the discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I did do that for...oh geez, what was it...oh yeah, Trade dispute. Feel free to add to that or clarify that if you think it needs improving. I like disambiguate closes, in part, because I like disambiguation pages! Doug Mehus T · C  17:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Tobiasz redirect
Hi ,

I examined your evidence to the Thomas Tobiasz redirect and noted from the redirect's creator his rationale for creating it. It all seems like a plausible typo and may even be the correct spelling of the name. It's been relisted once already. Though you're the only person to have contributed, do you think it'd be challenged if I closed it? Rationale and evidence are sound.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  16:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit iffy for a non-admin closure, IMO, though if anyone were to close, it could only be between no consensus and outright "keep" at this point. If you're interested, you might check with the nominator. Use in a published book seems quite persuasive to me, and perhaps they'll feel the same. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Agree on the possible outcomes at this point, which are effectively the same thing—in terms of what happens to the article (different meanings, of course). I agree, the fact that the typo was used multiple times in the text of the book (not just a citation) suggests it may even be a common misspelling. I'll check with the nom and see if they'd be comfortable with that. Doug Mehus T · C  16:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21
Hey BDD. Just noting that I made a comment under your close at Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21. (I didn't ping or mention you in the comments' edits, so I'm, more or less, mentioning it here since I had not "pinged" you and I'm not privy if you are watching that page or not.) I mean, you'll probably see it's a "no response necessary/requested" situation, but informing you nonetheless. Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mm. I certainly didn't intend it as a rebuke or anything, though I don't really think the keep and retarget votes were in opposition there. The two post-relist votes reinforced that, of course. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...Yes, agreed. After the two votes afterwards, the consensus was definitely clearer and the early close was workable per WP:RELIST. Steel1943  (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Trade and commerce links
Thanks for fixing all those trade and commerce links! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Can't believe it's been so long. --BDD (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the group, ! I had to self-invite myself to the Fifteen Year Society. Well, actually, I used the Wikipedia talk:Fifteen Year Society talkpage, to which a member said I could add myself as they're not so formal. Doug Mehus T · C  03:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I had some vague sense that my WikiBirthday was late in the year, but this still crept up on me. Glad to hear you're an old hand too. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy Titles
Just saw your question about courtesy titles from October in the Lord Althorp discussion. If you're still interested, a courtesy title is basically when a peer's eldest son uses one of his father's lesser titles as a "Courtesy title". So, in this case, John Spencer, eldest son of the Earl Spencer, wasn't called "John Spencer," he was called "Viscount Althorp", which was one of his father's titles that was junior to the main title, Earl Spencer. It's called a courtesy title because the title did not actually belong to Althorp - it was his father's title which he used "by courtesy" - he was not the Viscount Althorp, he was called or styled Viscount Althorp. What this means is that *most* of the people called "Lord Althorp" were called that only briefly, or during childhood and youth. Whereas the 3rd Earl was a very prominent politician as "Lord Althorp". — Preceding unsigned comment added by John K (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I find a lot of aspects of the peerage confusing or arcane, but this is a very good explanation. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year BDD!
Happy New Year! Hello BDD: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. ★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler Campbell" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Adolf Hitler Campbell. Since you had some involvement with the Adolf Hitler Campbell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 13 in California redirect
When I closed the RfD for the Interstate 13 in California redirect, I noted on the talk page that there had been been a previous RfD in which you were the closer. I chuckled at your closing remark when you said that it hopefully won't come up again now that it's mentioned in the target article. Apparently, it did come up again, and I wonder what happened to the mention from that RfD? We'd probably have to look into the edit history of the target article to see how it was removed and by whom, but it's curious nonetheless. I also noted participated in the former RfD, though not this one.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid you'll probably have to dive into the article history to find out. I haven't followed the article otherwise. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, will do when I get a chance. Might be worth a talk page discussion at the target to obtain consensus that the CAhighways webpage the participants noted should be reliable. Doug Mehus T · C  21:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect autopatrolled
Would you mind adding my username to New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist? Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 10:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirects to non-English albums and singles charts
I am pleased to finally see the back of all these at WP:RFD. It's mildly laborious work, but satisfying if it results in a good retarget. I imagine we won't be seeing any more such nominations from anytime soon... Narky Blert (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BDD, I'm rather troubled that by deleting some of these articles you are essentially giving sockpuppets what they want. If you knew the lengths this user had gone to in the past to harass me (harassing off-wiki and through email; trying to get me blocked by making up rumours that I told them to "jump off a cliff" via email, then when that failed, trying to interfere with what I do by creating accounts to move redirects I started into my own userspace; starting accounts under my real name; now campaigns I was never notified of like this to try to delete things I started because they have thought for years that I create redirects to "claim" and "own" things), I'm pretty sure you'd have been more inclined to have closed them with no consensus as well.


 * While I respect Narky Blert's opinion and the time they put in to research these pages to see if there were other valid targets for them, I am not of the opinion that one valid vote to delete is a consensus. I have restored some of my redirects and I may restore more, because I do not think it right nor fair that I should have to abide a clear lack of consensus where discussions were started for the sole purpose of harassment by somebody who should not have been and should not be allowed to do so. I do not think we should be giving sockpuppet accounts started for the sole purpose of harassing a user they don't like what they want, regardless of whether we agree with what they're saying/doing or not. I think WP:DENY applies here. The "discussions" should all have been closed with Rosguill's reasoning.


 * You noted in several of your closures that there were no arguments to keep on the February 8 discussion page. That's right, because I didn't think I needed to nor that I should have given the circumstances in which they were nominated. I also thought other admins would respect what wrote under each, and go with what  did for half of them. We shouldn't be tolerating it. If these articles are re-nominated by a constructive or established editor down the line, i.e. not immediately or in a couple of days, and there is a clear consensus to delete with more input, I will and would respect that. I always have. However, not in circumstances like this.  Ss   112   08:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add, if they're left alone, I'm willing to expand these into stubby articles myself. I wouldn't have created the redirects in the first place if I didn't think the topics were notable and could easily be turned into articles that would pass WP:GNG, because if an artist or release that's reached number one on a national music chart isn't notable, then what is?  Ss  112   09:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that I can't even comment here without being stalked and having another attack account made on me by the perpetrator themselves shows exactly why we should not be giving these attention-seeking individuals what they want, whether unintentionally or intentionally. BDD, I assume you have not seen the last of this person attempting to contact you either here or via email to try and delete more redirects.  Ss  112   12:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ss112, I am sorry for the harassment you've received. Needless to say, it should not happen to anyone. Still, I believe very much in evaluating content rather than contributors. I did see Ad Orientem's note. I assume other editors did too, and could've expressed an opinion contrary to deletion. One valid vote to delete can certainly be consensus if no one else says otherwise. We delete entire articles on this basis, after all.
 * Your harasser has not tried to contact me via email yet. I appreciate whoever undid their work here. Regardless of the RfD decision, I very much welcome even stubby articles about these subjects. Turning redirects to articles is encouraged at RfD, and my decisions only reflected the idea that the redirects were unsuitable, not that we shouldn't have coverage of the subjects. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Latine" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Latine. Since you had some involvement with the Latine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Matt Tong
Since you were the closing admin for the RfD for Matt Tong, I was wondering if you could go ahead and delete the redirect Matthew Tong as well. It's just a longer version of Matt Tong and it even directs to the same page Matt Tong did when it still existed. If not and it's against policy for you to delete things like that, just let me know, and I'll RfD it just like Matt Tong.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think this sort of thing is acceptable per WP:NOTBURO. Consensus was that this person shouldn't redirect, not a specific judgment about the spelling or form of that one redirect. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Deleted redirects
The lack of mentions for the redirects "Forever Love (1992 film)" and "Captive Women (1992 film)" in their respective articles was the main reason given by the user Rosguill for why they should be deleted, but mentions of those titles have been added to the articles since then. May I recreate the redirects once again, now that their concerns have been resolved? LionFosset (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , fine by me. signed,Rosguill talk 08:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Well...
...This is interesting. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh. Nothing to be worried about, it seems, though it's not me. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Corona in sweden
User:King of Hearts has asked for a deletion review of Corona in sweden. 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. —Cryptic 07:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Huw Lobb" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Huw Lobb. Since you had some involvement with the Huw Lobb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SFB 13:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Tupý concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Daniel Tupý, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Daniel Tupý


Hello, BDD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Daniel Tupý".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Hurricane Henriette (2001)
Hey there! Regarding your response to my nomination of Hurricane Henriette (2001) my rationale for deletion was based on the fact that such a hurricane did not exist, and the aforementioned redirect was likely created in error. As you can see here on the Hurricane Henriette disambiguation page, the storm named Henriette in 2001 was only a tropical storm and it never attained hurricane status, so there's absolutely no reason for anyone to say that this storm was a hurricane, and therefore no reason for this redirect to exist. I'm afraid this redirect will only keep confusing readers (including myself) who actually thought there was a hurricane of this name back in 2001. CycloneYoris talk! 22:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Macedonist (disambiguation)
Hi, User:BDD. Years ago I had created an disambiguation page that referred to the two meanings of this term. Unfortunately, it was deleted by you. May you restore the deleted disambiguation page for objective reasons here. You can find more on the ongoing dispute on that issue here. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Jingiby. While exceptions are always possible, a disambiguation page that links to only two articles is often subject to deletion. I did not think two different lines linking to Macedonianism (in addition to the other usage) were sufficient. I seem to recall at the time I deleted the page, there was a hatnote at Macedonian nationalist to Macedonian studies, or that I added one. If you have a third usage, a disambiguation page would probably be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have it, and I am going to restore it. Jingiby (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Self-Requested Block
Hello, BDD. Over a year ago I created this account, made a single edit, and subsequently lost the password for this account. Since then, I have created another account under the name TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername, which is the only account I have (and always will) intend to use for editing Wikipedia. As such, to prevent anyone else from potentially using this account (and to prevent any potential accusations of sock-puppeting, etc.), I would like to request an indefinite block on this account.

(I noticed you were listed in the category "Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks;" if this is not the correct venue, I apologize.) IAmQuiteTerribleAtChoosingUsernames (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, IAmQuiteTerribleAtChoosingUsernames/TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername, you recovered the password for your older account (with which you contacted me)? I'm willing to do this, but it would also be standard practice to simply redirect the user and user talk page of your defunct account to your new one. It's clear you're not using it for sockpuppetry, and combined with the explanation on your newer user page, the situation is quickly enough explained. Let me know which you prefer. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, by the way. I never recovered the older account's password, actually; I preformed a password reset after I discovered a few nights ago which email address I had used to originally create the account.


 * I would prefer the indefinite block over simply redirecting the account's user/talk pages, primarily because the former option would prevent anyone from cracking the older account's password and subsequently gaining a "free account" with known ties to my current one. (And yes, I suppose I could change the older account's password to a random 128-character string, but I'd prefer to completely close this potential vulnerability instead of simply kicking the metaphorical can farther down the road.) — TheHardestAspect&shy;OfCreatingAnAccount&shy;IsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ You're all set. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you have a word with this guy, please?
User:KermitO appears to have a major chip on his shoulder, and I'd appreciate it if you could settle him down a bit. I thought about bringing this to ANI but decided just poking an admin might produce more useful results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decoloniality_(2nd_nomination)

Jtrainor (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll give it my best shot, though "Don't @me" is a huge WP:NOTHERE red flag to me, and ANI may well be needed. Incidentally, I'm going to vote to keep at that AfD—no hard feelings, I hope. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hard feelings? Of course not. If you think you can take a crack at cleaning up that mess of an article, by all means have at it. I wouldn't know where to even start. Jtrainor (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jtrainor is right. I do have a huge chip on my shoulder. Wikipedia has become an important locus for knowledge and because there is such a Western/white middle-class bias coursing through the whole project (at least on EN), it has the effect of upholding fundamentally racist worldviews, even where it isn't explicit — and it practically never is explicit. I used to edit WP regularly some years back and got so fed up with "battling" with people and navigating all the weird "WP:InsertJargonyTermHere" rules and procedures, often used to negate different points of view, like reverting edits that don't conform to one or "violate" another. And then having "administrators" silence me. (Edit: I mean, even look at the language Jtrainor uses above. He asks for you, BDD, to "settle me down". What? You, nor anyone else, has any authority over me.) So I stopped editing.

And this is what I mean when I say "wikilords" — my sense of these self-important people who know all the "rules" and how, essentially to weaponize them against other editors. The minutia of Wikipedia's "rules" act as a barrier to entry, and as recurring obstacles to anyone who wants to participate but doesn't have the time (or first language mastery) to navigate it all. Reading the AfD discussion for Decoloniality re-activated those old feelings. Ultimately, I think BDD is right, that Wikipedia just isn't the place for me (or many others for the same reason), but at the same time I remain frustrated that one particular worldview dominates, to the exclusion and suppression of others. Those who "control the narrative", so to speak, have inordinate power, and for that power to lie in the hands of a relatively small privileged "in-group" is seriously problematic. If the vision of WP was to create an equitable "commons", all the digital bureaucracy and systemic biases make it an utter failure in that regard. KermitO (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one who wants to address those biases, though. I can't say everyone on Wikipedia does, but many do, even if it's just motivated by concerns such as keeping Wikipedia credible and reputable. I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to any editor "silenced" due to their worldview or personal opinions. If their convictions lead them to attack others, that's a different story. I'm not sure what else to say than to reiterate that you can improve Wikipedia and help address its bias. I hope you'll choose to do so. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * By "silencing", I'm referring to reversions and other bureaucratic removals of edits. Some of which functions as censorship. For an example of what I mean, look at the edit history of the L. Frank Baum article, which I just noticed today had slowly been edited to remove all references to his racism toward black people. I've since re-added that section, but we'll see what sort of "wars" will start to remove it again. As for the rest, the people who want to address the biases seem greatly outnumbered by those who want to maintain them — though I suspect the latter are often unaware of it. Personally, I don't have the time or energy to fight that battle on this forum. I'm too busy fighting it in the physical world. KermitO (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Cup Foods
Can you elaborate on why this discussion was closed as delete instead of being relisted? Please ping me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete voters were both more numerous and had stronger arguments. I'm not sure what more to say about it. It's not as though there was disagreement about whether or not the store is mentioned at Killing of George Floyd, but whether there's encyclopedic information about the store itself (as opposed to what we be found in a mere directory). --BDD (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Lauren Boebert&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Least-valued currency unit" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Least-valued currency unit. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Template talk:Infobox concert&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

John D. Silva
Greetings. You participated in a redirect discussion (here), back in December. A new editor has taken the redirect and turned it into a page about (imho) a notable person with that actual name. Now, if this were a case of an actual name match, I'd put a hatnote on it, but since it really isn't, what are your thoughts? Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi onel5969, situations like this that aren't an actual name match are great cases for a distinguish hatnote. I'll put one on. Thanks for asking. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Arameans article
Hello there, could you please take a look at Arameans article from time to time due to countless edit warrings with a group of national vandalists, such as user Mugsalot, who have successfully established themselves here on English Wikipedia by spreading POV editing. This has been going for the last couple of years. Permanently violating Wikipedia's policy instead of being a neutral encyclopedia, welcoming high-quality academic sources even if it doesn't fit these people's views, which shouldn't matter here. Many thanks in advance. --Optra2021 (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * —— Serial  10:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:John Alite&#32; on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)