:en:User talk:BD2412

I'm not sure if there's been a more central discussion somewhere about this, but to me while grouping the merge targets by increments of five degrees does seem convenient, the result is rather unnatural when the 20–25 lists cross the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn and the 65–70 the Arctic/Antarctic Circles without making any direct mention to them. At the very least the 23.5 and 66.5 circles should be added to the new lists, but I think it would be better to make the split at these lines, so that each article is within a single region. Also, titling the articles as "between the 20th and the 25th" is confusing as to whether it's supposed to include the 20th or the 25th. Would it be too confusing to have the articles organised as 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–23, 24–30, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45, 46–50, 51–55, 56–60, 61–66, 67–75 and 76–80 instead? This way it would be clear that the tropics and polar circles aren't included, and which list includes the fives and tens. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Paul_012}} See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south. I have no objection to mentions of the Tropics and Arctic/Antarctic Circles in those articles. The reason I didn't say, e.g., "between the 21st and the 25th" and "between the 26th and the 30th" was that this would give the impression that the degree between 25 and 26 was not covered by either article. I am certainly open to changes in titling and configuration that clarify things; I would only object to a return to the previous situation of a separate article for every degree on the map. With respect to the ranges proposed, for the most part they are already organized that way, but I think it would be needlessly awkward to have the 16–23, 24–30 numbering just to accommodate the rather arbitrary designation of the tropics. That's just my opinion, though. A broader discussion might yield a different consensus, which I would respect. BD2412 T 04:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi. Sorry for the silence; I tried thinking of some better options, but none came up. Anyway I was just reminded of this, and I think the ambiguity issue still needs to be addressed. The best I could think of is Circles of latitude over the 5th parallel north and up to the 10th parallel north. Do you think it'll work? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Frankly, I think it's unnecessarily complex, relative to the current titles. Now that I think about it, even the individual circle of latitude articles always covered more than just the circle itself. BD2412 T 15:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hmm. I would prefer to be able to tell from the article title which one covers the 5th parallel, but I'm not in a rush. Maybe a solution will eventually present itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Another option would just be to build in some redundancy, and have the 5th parallel included in both articles touching on the 5th parallel. BD2412 T 17:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If you intend to delete the page Shadow of a Man (song) altogether, I would ask you to please restore in the draft space for further improvement and possible resubmission at a later date. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Another Believer}} I have redirected the title as a WP:ATD; the history is still there if you would like to work on it. BD2412 T 01:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Great! Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::: My pleasure. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_B&redirect=no The B] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 5#The B}} until a consensus is reached. GilaMonster536 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|GilaMonster536}} I am at a loss to understand why I have been noticed for this discussion. It does not appear that I have ever even edited the redirect in question. BD2412 T 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::I just wanted more people to see it. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Fair enough. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia Talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Note: Your recent decision on the AfD nomination of LoveDrug is referenced as an example within the RFC (but, to be clear, without any ascription of fault, as I think there is genuine confusion and ambiguity in the policy). Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Flipandflopped}} I had no involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoveDrug. BD2412 T 18:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Apologies, I mixed you up because you were the one who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow of a Man (song). It relates to substantively the same ambiguity. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::: I see. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @BD2412, I patrol on articles tho I don’t have rights but I’m experienced, Do you mind granting me access for "Pending Changes Reviewer", I will love to contribute more with that role, Thanks alot for your time. Best Regards (CP) 23:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Chippla360}} I adhere to Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions, and therefore do not grant requests sought on my talk page. The appropriate place to make this request is at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. BD2412 T 00:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Casu proviso has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition sourced to a single source and unimproved for about 19 years.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Bearian}} I presume I am being noticed of this due to my previous work with short articles on writs, as I was not the author of this article; I have speedily merged and redirected it to List of writs#C. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, and thank you! Bearian (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you were a recently active admin and I had a question about which noticeboard to put a request on.

Two users have been edit-warring with each other on two different articles, and I wanted to bring attention to it. On one of these articles, one user has also reverted edits by me & another user. I want the content of the article brought back to neutral-POV, but would not like to engage in edit-warring myself to do so.

Where should I leave this request? Do I need separate requests for each user/article? Or would it be one request about article content & another about user conduct?

I've not mentioned the users by name because I felt mentioning them specifically to an admin without leaving a notice on their talk page feels wrong? I will do so when/if I put this request on an actual noticeboard.

Thanks for your help!  🚫 Lɪᴠᴇs ⬅️ 〈^Nᴇᴡ_Tᴀʟᴋ〉 04:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|No Lives Left}} If the edit warring is breaching WP:3RR, that would be the place to report it. If this is more of a slow-motion edit war, and engaging the individual editors on their talk pages is ineffective, it might be ripe at this point to take to WP:ANI, with appropriate notifications. BD2412 T 22:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, We've been discussing the possibility of replacing the current image of Michael Jackson on his Wikipedia page due to its poor quality. Although there's interest in changing the image, there aren't any high-quality, copyright-free photos available on Wiki Commons. I've contacted Getty Images, and they're open to allowing their images to be used on Wikipedia since it's a non-commercial platform. However, I've been informed that Wikipedia Commons requires a free license, such as CC-BY-SA 4.0. Given this, I was wondering if it's possible to upload a Getty Images photo on English Wikipedia under the non-free content criteria?. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|TheWikiholic}} I believe that this would actually require community discussion, and the establishment of a new standard, probably with its own set of templates and alteration to the local protocol for uploading images to English Wikipedia. We would need some assurance of permanence to this arrangement on the part of Getty Images, since it would be fairly disruptive to come to depend on them for a volume of images that could be pulled from us by a later decision on their part. I don't mean to be discouraging, I think this is a good opportunity, but we must be careful in its initiation. BD2412 T 15:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::What are the procedures for initiating a community discussion on this proposal? Where should the discussion take place? What specific questions and assurances should we request from Getty Images? TheWikiholic (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::: {{re|TheWikiholic}} I am not entirely sure, but I would think either Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). We had a similar discussion at some point about the New Georgia Encyclopedia, which allowed us to copy some of their articles as an experiment, though it did not go farther than that. BD2412 T 02:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

...and this makes no practical difference, but I think your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother (Swiss TV series) as "no consensus" instead of "keep" does not reflect the quality of arguments presented. We have two or three editors arguing, with plenty of sources, that this is notable. On the other hand, we have the nominator, whose argument (no sources) was addressed, and another !vote, which lacks any reasoning or basis in guidelines.

I admit that part of my motivation for bugging you about this at all is a general sense that AfD-closing admins are not bold enough nowadays; closers ought to assess for themselves whether arguments have any basis in guidelines and weigh weak !votes less. This is especially important at AfD, where UPE, socking, nationalist vote-stacking and all sorts of other perverse manipulation is common (not that any of these happened at this specific AfD).

Sorry for the rant. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Toadspike [Talk] 09:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Toadspike}} My close also reflects the fact that this was, after an extended time for discussion, a relatively low participation affair. I also note that despite sources being proposed in the discussion, none of them have made it into the article itself. Thus, the possibility of improvement has been raised, but none was made. BD2412 T 16:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Five editors opining is decent, possibly even above-average for an AfD. As for sourcing being in the article, I'm pretty sure that goes directly against the core ideas of notability and WP:NEXIST – at the very least it falls under several of the arguments to avoid listed under "surmountable problems". Unless it is eligible for speedy deletion, the state of the article should have absolutely zero bearing on an AfD close. Toadspike [Talk] 16:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Five editors, of whom two clearly supported keeping, one shifted from delete to redirect, and one opined without !voting. Content can be suitable for inclusion somewhere within Wikipedia without necessarily meriting its own article. There is a clear absence of consensus for that outcome. Also, yes, improvement of the article itself is a factor, which is why WP:HEY exists. A discussion may unearth sources that do not stand up to scrutiny when actually sought to be added. BD2412 T 16:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::1. I've already explained my thoughts on the votes and their merits/lack thereof. The raw vote count does not reflect the reasoned, guideline-based consensus.

::::2. The only editor who cited WP:NOPAGE immediately contradicted themselves; that shouldn't have strongly factored into the close. (I now really regret not pinging them after my !vote – with the quantity of sourcing I found, I didn't think I'd have to go votestacking...)

::::3. WP:HEY is a lazy shorthand for "sources that show notability are in the article now". It still all depends on the sources; in this case plenty were presented, and the only editor to assess them agreed. *adjusts glasses* and it's "just an essay".

::::4. I do not appreciate you...casting aspersions, if it can be called that, against the sources listed in the AfD, many of which are of very high quality. Regardless, that is not generally something for the closer to assess. Toadspike [Talk] 21:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: You have explained your reasoning. My close was correct and I stand by it. You are welcome to improve the article with the sources that you have identified, or otherwise, so that it does not potentially meet a different fate if such a challenge is raised again. BD2412 T 21:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm about done with ol' Frank. The article is about up to my low standards. If you think it is good enough you could make it live - I'm not very familiar with turning a draft into a regular article. Thanks for your help on it. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Brianyoumans}} I agree, but give me a minute and I'll see if I can find a public domain photograph of the subject. BD2412 T 20:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

: Never mind, I see you have done that too! BD2412 T 20:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi BD2412! Hope you are doing well. I took the liberty of sandboxing the couple of changes to add the HTML class to your userpage after the enactment of WP:STICKYDECO. I'd normally BOLDly make the change, but as you have fully protected your userpage I figured I should ask here first. Would you be able to copy/paste that revision into your userpage? It shouldn't change anything at all, display-wise, unless you follow the opt-out instructions :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|HouseBlaster}} {{done}}, cheers! BD2412 T 14:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you!! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;" | style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol | rowspan=3 | File:NPP Barnstar.png

* On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ridicule&redirect=no Ridicule] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 25#Ridicule}} until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in the close you state: {{tq|Evidence of use in extant sources is sufficient to show that the current title is not impermissible.}} Could you please give more detail as to the P&G such that the current title is not impermissible and the evidence in relation to this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

: This was clearly a discussion where no close would satisfy everyone, but I refer to the evidence cited in the discussion of both forms being used. Either title would be impermissible if it differed from virtually all real world uses, which is clearly not the case here. BD2412 T 00:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::None of the prevailing P&G cited in the discussion would state that seeing some evidence of the use of the capitalised form in sources makes the use of the capitalised form for the article titles permissable. The P&G requires a particularly high level of capitalisation in sources when used in prose for capitalisation to be permissable. Indeed, an observation of mixed capitalisation in sources would support the use of the lowercase title. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::: {{re|Cinderella157}} that was exactly the case with the Ngrams provided by Randy Kryn regarding North China Craton and South China Craton. That is the peril accompanying a mass nomination. BD2412 T 15:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::A multi-RM is not ipso facto all or none. Off-hand, I can recall several RMs where multi-RMs have concluded to move some but not all of the nominated articles as a result of discussion. Randy has only addressed two titles, North China Craton and South China Craton, and speculated on other titles. Randy would state: {{tq|If any others come close to 75-80 percent then I'd support leaving those uppercased as well. We can't go on guesswork ...}} However, another has reviewed all of the nominated articles and refers to evidence for the articles as a whole and/or a random sample - so there is no guesswork. Randy makes no argument as to why such a percentage represents the threshold for capitalisation, particularly when raw ngram data over-represents capitalisation in prose (the ngrams he relies upon). How WP:GEOCAPS fits or how it establishes a threshold different from WP:NCCAPS is not established. There is also the matter that, for the two particular titles that Randy relies upon, sources often use the capitalised form to introduce an initialism and that such examples do not support usual capitalisation in prose. Of those that oppose, only Randy has referred to any P&G and evidence. If Randy's opposition has been effectively rebutted in discussion, it carries little weight. This {{tq|is the peril accompanying a mass nomination}}. Notwithstanding this, there is a substantive argument that certain articles should be moved. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: This one was certainly treated as all-or-none by its participants. I see no suggestion that the outcome should be split over specific nominated articles (which, as a side note, would generate title inconsistency, in contradiction to the preference for consistency in article titles). The burden of generating a clear consensus to move longstanding stable titles remains on the party proposing to move those titles. Here there is not such a consensus, period, full stop. A closing administrator can not impose such a consensus by fiat. If you think that this discussion in fact demonstrates a clear consensus to move, you can seek review of this determination at Wikipedia:Move review. BD2412 T 16:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello sir im bad for bothering i just wanted to say can you remove protection from Tresean Gore Im kinda reason this page got protected in first place because of my recklessness of creating right after got deleted i apologize for that its been almost two years since then and i think its okay to unprotected now. (no do not drafty this page just removing protection for now is okay DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|DarkHorseMayhem}} If there is a draft that has been approved for mainspace by a regular AFC reviewer, I will unprotect the page so that the draft can be moved there, but not before that. BD2412 T 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::It was my fault that page got locked in first place since i didnt edit wiki for almost two years im not same as then and wont make stupid decision such as that one i think since it time passed its okay to unlock it. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::: It is a moot point. The article was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tresean Gore, and re-deleted pursuant to the recreation of content at that title following deletion. I will not unlock the page until there is a draft that meets the criteria for inclusion. If you disagree with this determination, you can raise the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but there is absolutely nothing preventing the creation of a new draft at Draft:Tresean Gore. BD2412 T 00:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::My bad for wasting your time. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@BD2412 gaming system with permission is so fun.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I do not intend to risk the recreation of an unencyclopedic topic against a prior consensus for deletion. However, I will gladly seek a second opinion from other administrators. BD2412 T 04:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:You may want to check the [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q134295067 Wikidata entry] to ensure I labeled it correctly. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:: {{re|CNMall41}} Looks good to me, thanks! BD2412 T 19:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1288829559, thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Polygnotus}} I have no idea what I am supposed to be looking for on this lengthy page. BD2412 T 23:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is easier. They keep removing the report from ANI. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1288830249#Terrence_Howard Polygnotus (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I can do nothing about this now, per my adherence to Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions. BD2412 T 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That essay is about closing discussions. No worries, Ingenuity indeffed em. Polygnotus (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you want to you can opt out of the [https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins Recently Active] tool. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enterprisey/recently-active-opt-out.json here]. Polygnotus (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{discussion moved from|WP:VPT#"This editor has been thanked ____ times" userbox}}

BD2412, regarding your question at VPT to create a user box to display thanked statistics, I think Cryptic's 23:14 5 May comment is the key to solving your VPT question. I am not yet 100% sure it will give you what you want, but I think so. The steps are roughly:

1. create a periodic {{t|database report}} that runs {{quarry|93358}} and stores it on a user subpage, e.g. User:BD2412/thanks_report
2. an analysis phase follows, to see how it is formatted, and the best way forward, which I suspect will be as follows
3. write a template (maybe {{tlx|get latest thanks|db report pagename}} which extracts the latest db report thanks tally value from your subpage and returns the tally (but Cryptic suggested another way; see below)
4. write a userbox that invokes {{tlc|get latest thanks}} to report the latest value

• Asynchronously and at your convenience, clean up your db report subpage manually, by blanking everything but the latest figure; doing that a few times a year is probably enough.
• You will likely eventually get queries from other editors how to duplicate your cool userbox on their page, and you can head that off at the pass by writing up a doc subpage (or WP essay) explaining how to do it, and when the questions come in, just point to it.

I would start by having a look at Template:Database report, and see if you can recreate {{quarry|93358}} as a db report dumping into a subpage in your userspace. You can start out with a daily report, and if you get stuck on step 1, read through the Talk page conversations, and if that doesn't help, you can raise a new discussion there. When there are three or four days worth of data, then we are ready for step 2, so ping me and I can write {{tlc|get latest thanks}}, and once we have that, you can create the user box fairly easily. (By the way, if this works out as expected, then implementing the proposal to add thanks in the other direction would be trivial, and echo the design using the same procedure on a different subpage.) Cryptic mentioned another way, involving getting the db report template to add <includeonly>...</includeonly> around only the latest value, and if that is feasible, it obviates the need for a middleman template like {{tlc|get latest thanks}} and you could transclude the db report page directly from the userbox.

This is how I see the architecture of it; others might do it differently. Feel free to solicit second and third opinions about this approach (I would, if I were you). If you prefer this approach, do the steps make sense to you, and are they comprehensible? I think there is a pretty good chance you will end up with exactly the result you wanted, with the tally being displayed in a user box, and updating automatically day-by-day (or perhaps better, week-by-week to lessen load on the sql server) and watch the number jump. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: Thanks! I don't mind having to manually update from time to time, as long as I don't have to scroll through pages of reports to find the number. BD2412 T 02:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Not sure what you are saying. Are you giving up on the userbox idea? But if you are happy to pick out a number from, say, a monthly list, then the {{t|database report}} will give you that, if you don't need the userbox and are willing to go look at the subpage where they are listed. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::: {{re|Mathglot}} I mean that a self-updating userbox template would be ideal, but if that aspect were unfeasible, I would be fine with a manually updated userbox. BD2412 T 02:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello {{ping|BD2412}} Would you be interested to doing a bit of Afd analysis. I would like your opinion specifically for the article Paul Alan Levy who is an attorney. It seems to heading for an no consensus !vote and at the moment I'm no exactly sure what is what and seems to stuck in a rut. Its a field I don't really know at at all. I'm looking for a clearer consensus to bring something out of it. Even if its only advice for the future for myself. Any help is appreciated. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|scope_creep}} Frankly, my first instinct would be that an attorney who has argued multiple cases before the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to be notable, and the only concern will be finding the sources. BD2412 T 13:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::As far as I'm concerned that's it settled. Thanks BD. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)