Your submission at Articles for creation: Yarra Falls has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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 .
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)- Thanks, User:Theroadislong. I wasn't expecting such a quick response! BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kimiko Ezaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestyle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Ethiopia – woredas or districts
Hi BilledMammal. Please note my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia/Geography#Woredas or Districts before making further changes to those articles. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BilledMammal! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Clubmen of Dorset and Wiltshire has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . 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!
Theroadislong (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oops, thank you bot. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wehda Street airstrikes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Fall of Kabul (2001)
Hello! Your submission of Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you BuySomeApples (talk · contribs); I appear to be too late to reply, but I'm happy with the primary hook :). Have a good day, I'm off to get some apples! BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good @BilledMammal:! It looks like my apple propaganda is working... BuySomeApples (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you BuySomeApples (talk · contribs); I appear to be too late to reply, but I'm happy with the primary hook :). Have a good day, I'm off to get some apples! BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amrullah Saleh 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC) --
DYK for Fall of Kabul (2001)
On 27 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fall of Kabul (2001), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 2001 Fall of Kabul, young men lined up to have their beards shaved off? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fall of Kabul (2001)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update! BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Belaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crimean Tatar.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Aukus
Good afternoon Sir. I have nominated your work at WP:ITN/C Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is more others work by this point (including your own) but thank you all the same; I find it a particularly interesting turn of events. BilledMammal (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Aukus
On 18 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aukus, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 03:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC) - Done though the lack of specification made it a lengthy endeavour...
Invite
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:AUKUS 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) - Done, thank you.
FYI: on WP:INVOLVED
You cited this ArbCom case as a reason to believe that INVOLVED applies to anyone who has a "rooted interest" in a topic. This is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. ArbCom is not the Supreme Court. They resolve disputes, but their rulings are not binding outside of their specific contexts. They do not create precedents. They do not shape policy. They do not interpret policies in a way that is applicable in any other context. Guidelines and policies are formed entirely from community consensus. And ArbCom does not represent the will of the community in that way. They represent themselves as an alternative and last-ditch method of very specific contextual dispute resolution.
Secondly, you cite WP:NACINV, ignoring the fact that this essay again is entirely about the past tense. If you find a policy/guideline that says an editor should avoid becoming involved in a topic after they close a discussion about it, I would love to read it. Because that would fundamentally change how I interact with the wiki.
Otherwise, please do not cast aspersions in my direction unless you are ready to back an accusation up with policy- and diff-based evidence, on a noticeboard or user talk page. That also applies to @HTGS: Thank you both for respecting my wishes. I mean no disrespect, but it is both unfortunately common, and very much against policy to bring these things up as a "trump card" in discussions such as was done at WP:NCNZ. It was grossly inappropriate and an exact violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Not enough to do anything about it, but a warning to the wise. Repeated instances of citing misconduct as a reason to WP:WIN a discussion could be brought to WP:ANI. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was conflict edited so many times, I will add my out of date thoughts here:
- "The rule exists for the obvious reason. A lawyer cannot judge their own case or be seen to be doing so. In this discussion they will have no power beyond their knowledge and persuasiveness, both of which are valuable.
- The most important thing for me is that what ever we agree, we all toe the line, best we are able. We can’t do that by excluding 'involved' editors from this discussion." Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- My apologies @Dushan Jugum, it was a very impassioned discussion on my end. As the person who added that collapse, I give you full and unbridled permission (and anyone else who was EC'd and reads this) to re-add their thoughts to the collapsed discussion. I collapsed it because it detracts from the overall ability to read through that already monster of an RfC. But I don't think adding your edit conflicted thoughts to it will impede that goal in any way. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- No no, it went through frustrating and ended up funny. I am overjoyed with the collapse, I was finding it hard to navigate the thread and had been there for a while, woe betide anyone who is new. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Shibbolethink
- I did have some misconceptions about how ARBCOM works, and though I still find it a little murky I thank you for providing some clarity. However, in this case I don't believe I was relying on those misconceptions; I believe that we are merely relying on it an authoritative clarification (as in "
able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable
" not "proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience
") of how WP:INVOLVED should be interpreted†.
- In regards to WP:NACINV, I would like to clarify that I wasn't citing it, but was instead referring to it as an
essay that speaks to the points I raise
. In particular, I findClosing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure.
is of particular interest. To me, this would suggest that current but undisclosed conflicts of interest ("rooting interest", as stated by ARBCOM) are problematic, a conclusion that closely aligns with my personal opinions on the matter. I am willing to take it on faith that you did not have a "rooting interest" when you closed the RM's, but your contribution to the later discussion gives the appearance that you did.
- I would also like to clarify that when I previously considered bringing the matter to your attention, it was with the aim to post on your talk page rather than the RfC. Further, I would like to clarify that I consider your contribution to the RfC to be "proper", and believe that the formally correct remedy would be to reverse your closures, not strike your contribution, though I would further note that I do not believe such a reversal to be in the best interest of Wikipedia; while I do believe that your closure was potentially "improper", I also believe it to be "right" based on the current guidelines‡ and consensus based on those guidelines and so per the example in the second paragraph of WP:SNOW, a waste of everyone's time to repeat.
- Indeed, my general hope in joining that discussion on it was to have you consider your future actions in the context of it, and not alter your past actions - although here I erred, and though I don't believe my failure to do so was a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, being an effort to resolve my concerns with you, I should have moved the conversation to your talk page much earlier, and to this end I have struck my comments on the RfC, and apologise to you now.
- †I believe this to be in line with your citation of WP:ASPERSIONS, as an information supplement intended to authoritatively clarify WP:PA through relevant ARBCOM rulings
- ‡Though there is a debate about whether there was ever a consensus for that guideline, that is a matter to discuss if the RfC closes as no consensus and further RfC's are unable to determine what alterations are required for a consensus to be established, and far too nebulous to consider in closing
- PS: I hope nobody minds that I have altered the indentation in the above discussion, in order to better "chain" it. If you do, please don't hesitate to revert
- BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry that things went a bit south for you there. For what it's worth, I certainly wasn't suggesting you were breaking rules.
- However I did find your closures and subsequent comments in the RfC uncomfortable. As I think BilledMammal put it, it felt outside the spirit of the law. You hinged the closures on acting out the naming conventions as they were currently stated, despite an RfC that was soon to be opened. I would usually hope that any editor would put off closing such discussions until the RfC was closed, especially as the page moves were not of high importance. But then to comment on the RfC with an opinion so far outside of what I expect an informed or considered editor to post... well it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, I guess. The whole thing appeared improper, and as though you were acting with an agenda.
- Hope you're dealing ok; I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly wish you no ill will, and I strongly suspect that's true for the others involved. If you're still in med school, or working in healthcare, I'm sure you're well stressed outside of your efforts on Wikipedia, so I'm sorry that involvement with the Project had to add stress in your life like that. Look after yourself first. — HTGS (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, BilledMammal,
Thank you for tagging Holy ejaculation for speedy deletion, that needed to go! I saw that you use Twinkle for tagging pages but you didn't post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. Please set up your Preferences to always "Notify page creator". Sometimes this involves checking boxes for all of the different types of CSD criteria. I've heard that Twinkle's default setting is that only a few criteria, like A7 and G11, are checked but a notice has to be posted for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.) tagging that you do. Thank you again for your work. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for getting to that, and for letting me know about the need to notify. I've now updated my preferences (after becoming aware of said preferences) so it shouldn't happen again - it seems it is on by default for all rationales except for C1, R2, R3, and R4. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
very quietly
hey, BilledMammal, i didn't want to say this on WT:DYK where everyone'll see it, but the reason I asked you to check ALT3f was because we'd went full circle—it was the same as ALT3a. The discussion's archived now—so nothing to worry about really :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- That was a silly discussion on my part, but I will admit I got a good laugh out of it when you pointed out what happened - thank you! :) BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin
On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles IV commanded the significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
prior accounts
Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 00:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, you need to stop asking this question. If your suspicion is correct and an individual is a sockpuppet then they will lie and the question provides no benefit, and if they are not a sockpuppet then you have cast WP:ASPERSIONS on an innocent editor. But no, I am not a sockpuppet, and if you believe I am take it to SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Read the links you post. Read where it says It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. Asking an editor a question once is not, and cannot be, "casting aspersions". So no, I do not need to stop asking this question, and asking it provides for further potential evidence in the response. But thank you for answering. nableezy - 02:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." You might argue that this is an innocent question, but it is too pointed to be innocent particularly given your history, and it contributes to the hostile environment in the area.
- Of course, this doesn't prevent you from asking the question, but it does require you to provide evidence when you do. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- There has been no accusation. If youd like to report me for casting aspersions feel free. My history? Huh. nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see that I am not the only editor to have had issues with your approach, and so I have reluctantly done so. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- There has been no accusation. If youd like to report me for casting aspersions feel free. My history? Huh. nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Read the links you post. Read where it says It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. Asking an editor a question once is not, and cannot be, "casting aspersions". So no, I do not need to stop asking this question, and asking it provides for further potential evidence in the response. But thank you for answering. nableezy - 02:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
ARBPIA
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
A standard message about an administrative ruling in effect
Hello, You have expressed interests in the E.Europe (The Holocaust) topics -->[1],[2],[3] I would like you to be aware of the below ruling. Happy editing.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
GizzyCatBella🍁 14:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Avoiding duplicate
Howdy. I added "part II" to the title of the AE report you've initiated, so that it doesn't mis-direct to the earlier AE report on the same editor. Hope that's alright, with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Help Request
Hey BilledMammal. Yesterday, you helped me fix the FAQ on Talk:Killing of David Amess. I recently started Wikipedia:Assassination as a way to help direct this confusion in the future about Wikipedia not calling the murder of a politician an assassination. I haven't posted an essay before, and I am not sure if you have either, but would you mind helping me out? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
AE filing closed
Hi, just letting you know this AE has been closed (details here). Thank you for withdrawing the filing but please review the level of evidence required for an AE post before posting future ones. . -- Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
New Wikipedia Guideline Proposed which you might be interested in.
Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Social democracy 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for abuse of process
Hi, BilledMammal. Nableezy previously had a vexatious WP:AE complaint filed against him on 16 October, as you were of course aware at the time you filed the next one on 24 Oct, since you had commented on the earlier case a little more than a week earlier. Withdrawing your own vexatious complaint[4] after it got no traction isn't good enough, nor do I find Euryalus's mild warning above (not even a logged warning) adequate. You have been blocked for 48 hours for abuse of our processes, and for egregious failure to consider the drain on a user's time and psychic energy that such a one-two of complaints is likely to cause. Please, another time, consider the human behind the username and the effects of your actions on them. Our boards are not intended as tools for taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing by the gutta cavat lapidem technique, not even if unintended. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Also, I will post a request for review of this block at WP:ANI. If you wish to comment there, please write below and I'm sure somebody will copypaste it to ANI. Bishonen | tålk 06:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
- Apologies for the delayed reply; I needed to step back. If you reply, please note that it will probably be a few weeks before I reply again.
- Perhaps I was being too sensitive, but when when you say to think of the person behind the username, that's all I wanted Nableezy to do, and when they declined to change their behaviour by going straight to SPI with any suspicions they had in the future, all I wanted from AE was to compel them to do so - nothing more. Clearly, AE was the wrong place to try and address this.
- I was aware of the Free1Soul case, but I want to note that I feel that I defended Nableezy there and criticized Free1Soul.
- I'll leave whether you want to transcribe this over to ANI to you; I only wanted to explain myself here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
And tell me the meaning of life while you are at it.
Maungarei to Maungarei / Mount Wellington. I am fine with it. But are we shifting every Duel name to English and every Māori name to Duel. I mean that is what we are doing, given the old rule and the way the language is shifting I can see how we got here. But how can we know we are being neutral in doing it and not just following my middle aged Pākehā gut feeling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dushan Jugum (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think that is what we are doing; in addition to Goat Island / Rakiriri which I moved to the Maori name, there are many articles currently at the Maori name that I would not support moving, and several at dual names that I would not support moving in either direction.
- As for how we are neutral in this, I think we just need to try to apply WP:CRITERIA in a fair and consistent manner; if we do so we will likely arrive at a decent result for all articles, though individual opinions might vary depending on how much weight the individual gives specific aspects of criteria, and how much weight the individual gives different forms of evidence.
- PS: 42 BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Greeks 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
How an option can be added to an ongoing RfC?
Having two maps with different views (the one I added and the one the RfC is about) is not listed as an option in the RfC question. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Revert only when necessary
Hello BilledMammal, I was wondering why you were going through and reverting almost every single edit I have made to Wikipedia. This seems to be at odds with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary.
Will you be attending the South African Discord meetup in two hours? Would like to discuss this issue with you there.
I hope you can understand why reverting tons of work can be frustrating especially when no sources or explanation is given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/South_Africa
- Hi User:Desertambition
- Not quite every edit; I was reverting many, but not all, of your recent WP:BOLD moves because my research showed that it was unclear whether the official name had become the common name, and in some cases it appeared clear to me that it had not yet done so. Please note that while I did not provide sources, as it is a little difficult to provide the number required to ascertain WP:COMMONNAME in an edit summary, I did provide an explanation in every case.
- Incidentally, I wanted to message you myself, and ask you to self-revert your reimplementation of the move to Kala, Eastern Cape? The practice is that once a move is contested, such as by reverting it, you open a RM to avoid engaging in a WP:PMW.
- As for the meetup, unfortunately I will not be able to attend. BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- I find is very unreasonable to reverse months of my edits in six hours without even talking about me. It is unreasonable to have to create a move request for every single page in existence. Especially for a page like Cala->Kala which is just a grammatical change. It has also been changed since 2006. You di not provide an explanation for every case and you do not even check sources. I am irritated that you erased months of work. That was avsolutely not appropriate. Please tell me how "Kala" is a controversial name change. I would like to go through and revert every change you made to my profile. Extremely inappropriate. Desertambition (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User:Desertambition
- As I said in my edit summary, I reverted Kala because a news search shows significant levels of recent use of "Cala" and it is unclear whether the common name has followed the official name. (See 1234).
- As such, please follow WP:RMUM, revert your recent move-reimplementation and open an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is no reason to revert changes when the evidence does not say what you believe it says. You reverted almost every single change in the last few months and you refuse to create your own fleshed out reasonings. Please revert your moves and provide detailed explanations for why they should be moved back. It is unreasonable to do what you are suggesting I do. Again, you deleted MONTHS of work, your evidence is suspect and less compelling than what I have provided. You have not responded to me on the Qonce page where you provided very weak evidence and then refused to back down. This is incredibly frustrating. I have attempted to engage with you and discuss this but it seems like a clear example of WP:HOUNDING. You have not assumed good faith on my part at any point and it is hard to engage with you when that is the case. You immediately assumed bad faith and erased months of work. This conversation is getting us nowhere and it's clear we aren't agreeing on the facts of the situation despite having the same evidence in front of us both. I have created a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force if you would like to read a more thorough explanation of my position. If no consensus is reached after a few days we should take this to dispute resolution because we do not seem to be making progress. But for now, I believe we should wait for further discussion from other users. Desertambition (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you believe that I have violated WP:HOUNDING and WP:AGF, the correct place to take this is WP:ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is no reason to revert changes when the evidence does not say what you believe it says. You reverted almost every single change in the last few months and you refuse to create your own fleshed out reasonings. Please revert your moves and provide detailed explanations for why they should be moved back. It is unreasonable to do what you are suggesting I do. Again, you deleted MONTHS of work, your evidence is suspect and less compelling than what I have provided. You have not responded to me on the Qonce page where you provided very weak evidence and then refused to back down. This is incredibly frustrating. I have attempted to engage with you and discuss this but it seems like a clear example of WP:HOUNDING. You have not assumed good faith on my part at any point and it is hard to engage with you when that is the case. You immediately assumed bad faith and erased months of work. This conversation is getting us nowhere and it's clear we aren't agreeing on the facts of the situation despite having the same evidence in front of us both. I have created a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force if you would like to read a more thorough explanation of my position. If no consensus is reached after a few days we should take this to dispute resolution because we do not seem to be making progress. But for now, I believe we should wait for further discussion from other users. Desertambition (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- I find is very unreasonable to reverse months of my edits in six hours without even talking about me. It is unreasonable to have to create a move request for every single page in existence. Especially for a page like Cala->Kala which is just a grammatical change. It has also been changed since 2006. You di not provide an explanation for every case and you do not even check sources. I am irritated that you erased months of work. That was avsolutely not appropriate. Please tell me how "Kala" is a controversial name change. I would like to go through and revert every change you made to my profile. Extremely inappropriate. Desertambition (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Maddy Dychtwald 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
No need to apologise
Greetings! Your table made me laugh, and had nothing to do with my retirement. Take care. Tewdar (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Should all characteristics of a topic be included in the title?
This is slightly off topic, so I'm mentioning it on your talk page. I think you keep falling into the trap of "all major characteristics of a topic must be included in the title". But that's not the case and I don't think even you believe that. For example, here you proposed the title "Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike" for an event in which many were killed. No dictionary definition of "missile strike" includes the deaths of humans (and many missile strikes don't kill anyone at all). In fact, plenty of article titles don't convey all major facts about the topic. Consider the frequent "Shooting vs Killing" debate: for example, the title Shooting of Oscar Grant doesn't tell the reader that Oscar Grant was actually killed, so should we rename this to "Killing of Oscar Grant"? Well, if we have a WP:COMMONTITLE (meaning a name preferred by RS that discuss the subject) then we go with that, even if that name doesn't convey all the major facts. VR talk 06:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is sufficiently relevant to the RM, but I'll reply here just once. The difference is what the reader will expect to find at the page from the title. In the case of "Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque missile strike", they will correctly expect to find a missile strike. At "Shooting of Oscar Grant", they will correctly expect to find a shooting. At "History of concubinage in the Muslim world" they will expect, based on modern definitions of concubinage (Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins), to find an article about the practice of keeping mistresses in the Muslim world, when in fact they will find an article about slavery. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox officeholder 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Article titles 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Tabling the issue
Howdy. It's enjoyable to see that Bastun is still trying to annoy me :) GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, it should be a top-10 least, with editor ranked according to # of posts in the 'survey' section (not including the 'vote' posts). GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Khubusi River Unilateral Move
Please make a move request in response to a good faith move instead of doing it unilaterally. Present evidence for why it should be moved. I have moved it back in the meantime. Desertambition (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RMUM, specifically "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." I would ask that you self-revert your repeated move, and if you believe the move is still warranted, open an RM proposing to do so.
- Before opening the RM, I would ask you to look at the evidence I referenced in my move; ngrams, and google news searches for Khubusi River and Kubusi River. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction closed
Hello, the ARCA you filed has been closed, see here for the Arbitrators' views on the matter. The request has been archived here should you wish to review it in future. The section will be removed from the main ARCA page in 24 hours in accordance with standard procedure. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- This seemed like the right place to drop this in. :) Regarding your list of GSoW editors on the evidence page, Wyatt Tyrone Smith self-disclosed here]. I seem to remember that CatCafe also disclosed, but that was using one of their other accounts, so I'd need to dig a bit further. (CatCafe has a nasty history, but as I think GSoW was as much fooled as anyone, I'm not thinking that it is ultimately relevant). - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, edited my statement for Wyatt Tyrone Smith. I won't change CatCafe for now - regarding their history, I would agree that their worst behaviours aren't relevant, as those behaviours don't appear to be related to them being a member of GSoW. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Todd Ames Hunter 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
January 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal statements about users as you did to me at WP:ANI. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The wording of level-4s and -4ims is kinda funny, if you think about it. "You may be blocked from editing without further warning." Like, you may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add a citation to an article. You probably won't! It'd be really weird, and the blocking admin might get desysopped. But... You may be. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you comment at RFD. You won't, because that would be really weird and I'm not an admin, but... You may be. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou
Thankyou for nominating the article on Hazel Hutcheon for deletion. This is going to be a big task to remove the articles we have on Olympians who no longer meet our inclusion criteria. I am glad to see it has been begun.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: Happy to help where I can; Wikipedia isn't the place for articles that are impossible to expand beyond a database entry. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- True. We have a lot of articles that meet that definition though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also thankyou for nominating Aad Oudt. It appears some editors are trying to ignore the RfC, and still claim that people participating in the Olympics are defualt notable for participating in the Olympics, even though the clear decision was only those who medal are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I have to admit some days I fear it will take almost as long for the Olympics RfC to stick as it has for the secondary schools RfC to have impact. That happened in 2017 but it was literally only today that a significant number of articles on secondary schools in Michigan were nominated for deletion. Before today almost all such deletions had been done with schools in India or the Phillipines. With the Olympians we have seen a few articles deleted, but the number of single non-GNG sources articles is staggering. This is a much larger set of articles than we faced with the Tolkien created fictional characters set three years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This is also probably more articles than faced in the cricket debates 2 years ago. Here we have seen an actual change in the default notability criteria. Part of me is thinking that I may for the time being try to focus just on truly marginal American Olympians. I still am surprised that so few have nominated articles for deletion. Although the fact that when one does so this is considered grounds for speaking negative falsehoods against them does not help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Might be worth restarting WP:SCISSORS, to allow us to work through groups of articles, as well as conduct a collaborative WP:BEFORE process. In regards to marginal American Olympians, this is probably a good way to find a list - normally I use "biography" as the second project, but that search seems to produce generally relevant results.
- In the meantime, I'm thinking about nominating the following for deletion:
- Aaron Keith - might be better to start with less contestable articles, as he appears to meet both WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NCYCLING, but as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV (the closest I could find was "In the men's C1 pursuit, Aaron Keith is set to make his Paralympic debut at age 50. Keith's burgeoning cycling career was interrupted by a mountain biking accident in 1993 that left him with paralysis below the knee. He got into para cycling, eventually made the national team in 2013, and has competed at the world championships many times, but he missed out on making the U.S. Paralympic Team in 2016. Keith holds a silver medal in the individual pursuit from the 2017 World Championships" and "American Aaron Keith just missed the finals of the men's 3000m individual pursuit C1 with a fifth-place finish overall, losing out on a shot at the bronze medal by about a half-second in his Paralympic debut. The 50-year-old fractured his 12th thoracic vertebra in his early 20s while mountain biking with teammates in Virginia – at the time, he was among the state's best riders") I am considering it.
- Aaron Herman - fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and the only coverage I could find of him was a passing mention on an article about Simone Biles
- Abraham Mellinger - fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and I wasn't able to identify any coverage.
- Thoughts Johnpacklambert? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I might prod the bottom two rather than taking them straight to AFD; the tags are likely to be removed without any significant coverage being provided, but on the off chance that coverage is provided or they aren't removed, it will save us all a lot of time. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I really think that now that we have agreed that not all Olympic competitors are default notable for doing that there needs to be an RfC on cycling notability. It no longer makes sense for other Subject notability guidelines to say all Olympic competitors are default notable. Also, if the Olympics do not confer default notability, does it make sense to say participation in other races that happen annually do. I would think it would be worth trying an RfC and waiting to nominate such an article. I will look at the specific cases in a bit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense; no need to go after the where people might inappropriately !vote "Keep per SNG" when we can address articles that fail both GNG and the relevant SNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Abraham Mellinger seems a slam dunk deletion case. Back when I would argue against the all Olympic competitors are default notable idea, the 1904 Olympics was the showcase of why this was so. There were just over 600 competitors. Just over 500 from the USA and about 100 from elsewhere, including Canada. Some of the competitions apparently doubled as US championships, lots of tip sports people from Europe did not make these Olympics. Asia, Africa and Latin America were not directly represented, but these games were connected to the World's Fair. So that seems as easy sell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mellinger seems very proposed deletionable. Especially with the whole context of what the 1904 Olympics actually were.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Prodded Mellinger - based on what you have said, the 1904 Olympics might be a good place to start working through, though we will need to use categories for that rather than a project search. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Mellinger does not seem to be the only person in that event who is not notable. There were 10 competitors, 9 from the USA, bit gold was won by the one non-American. So we have Albert Bechestobill, who lost to the guy who lost as close to the finals as anyone did. We also have Samuel Filler who lost in that extra removed round. Both are sourced only from sports reference and Olympia, which are word for word the same. More telling to me is our articles on these people leave out some crucial details, almost as if they have been written to hide what is going on. Filler represented the Chicago Central YMCA and Bechestobill represented the St. Louis Amerature Athletic Association. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
A full 8 1904 Olympic participants were members of the Turners organization in St. Louis. Another was sponsored by such an organization in New Jersey. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yet the Turners article says nothing of such organizations sponsoring participants in the 1904 Olympics. Well it also has its current stats from 2011, thus 11 years out of date. I have a sense in its coverage of Olympic related things Wikipedia currently over values bios and under values covering the larger structures that enable these things. Some of this might be personal bios are more popular that writing on the structures and systems. Yet we clearly have way to many sub-stub level bios that have no value. Including the ignoring of sponsoring and affiliation information in sources we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually the winner of the 1904 Olympics was not by some measures Norwegian. He was in 2012 reclassed as Norwegian because he did not actually get US citizenship until 1905, but this means he was a legal resident of the US in 1904 and for several years before this. It seems to basically be a reclassified act that ignores his will. He was sponsored by the Brooklyn Norwegian American Turners organization. So the whole competition was Americans sponsored by various Amature clubs in the US. In fact Illinos, Missouri, New Jersey and New York so far. The Olympics overall were a bit broader, but not this wrestling. Also this shows there were non-German Turners, so our article over emphasizes the German ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
At least 3 different Turners organizations in St. Louis had teams at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics. The Tug-o-war winning team at that Olympics represented one of the St. Louis Turners organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I was a little wrong. That team got the silver. The gold went to an organization from Milwaukie. The bronze went to a different team from the same St. Louis Turner organization that the Silver winning team came from. There was one other team in the 1904 Olympic tug-o-war. It was from the New York Athletic club. I have to say in this case I am skeptical that being on a team that won a medal, except maybe a gold medal, would be a sign of notability. Overall I am not sure we should treat team medals the same as individual ones.The 1994 Olympics are an interesting case for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to verify the "against his wishes" aspect, as given that he died in 1916 that seems difficult to determine, but unfortunately the URL is dead, but the SVD report on the change doesn't mention it - I'm going to remove that claim. As for why, I don't think that personal bios are more popular in general, I just think it is easier to write a one line personal bio than it is to write a full article, so even if most of our editors work on the latter, a few working solely on the formal is enough to produce a lot of articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the tug of war teams, I think I would agree - while some of the team members might have had sufficient coverage, I don't believe it is safe to assume that all or even most did. I'm not sure I'll nominate them any time soon, given the medalling aspect, but I will look into the non-winning teams, though I note most of them already lack articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The 1904 Olympics had one competition, the 8 person rowing, with just 2 teams, so no bronze was given. N. M. Smith appears to have been eliminated in the first round of tennis. He was in 3 other non-olympuc competitions at the 1904 St. Louis world's fair the 1904 Olympics were part of, and he only won 1 match in those other competitions. What exactly is the rational for our articles being shorter and less informative than sports reference.com. I think it is bad that we are too close to an IMDb mirror, but the sports reference situation is crazier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at that article, I particularly enjoy the infobox, which states: "Full name: N. M. Smith". The fact that we don't know his full name does suggest a general lack of notability, but the fact that the article tells us that is his full name is a little amusing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Douglass Turner (tennis) is another interesting 1904 case. The repeated source that our article is based on throws out possible birth and death information, and then admits there is no real known connection. This seems to indicate that outside of the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair there is no evidence of a Douglass Turner doing tennis at all. I am glad the unfounded possible connection is not in our "article".John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If N. M. Smith was from Sri Lanka I might believe that was essentially his full name. Since he was an American I am sure it was not, although he may have used it a lot. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, one more before I go to bed. This is an intriguing case. Stewart Trittle. He was chief of construction at the 1904 St. Louis world's fair. Would this make him notable? I have doubts, and our article neglects mentioning this. He lost every game of tennis he was in, both demonstration and Olympic. It is unclear if he had any background actually playing tennis. Was he just a warm body to fill out the court? Were lots of support and such staff doubling as athletes? John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Before October of last year it seemed some did not care as Ling as we could check " participated in the Olympics". John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
OK. One last one. George Stadel you have to see what they say about him at Olympia. In the singles he was in the only round 1 match and lost. He competed as late as 1922, but seems to have lost Round 1 in basically every match he played.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- You have to admire the persistence. I've prodded Tritle; I was hoping I could find something that would explain how the chief of construction ended up playing in the games (and at the same time allow him to meet GNG) but unfortunately there was nothing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
OK. This really will be the last. Nathaniel Semple is an intriguing case. We have an obituary for him, or maybe a death notice. It fails to mention his being an Olympic competitor at all. Just mentions he was a medical doctor. Olympia makes statements about advanced medical training in Germany and France. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Simple died only 9 years after the Olympics. He died in the city where the Olympics were held. To use Wikipedia parlance at the time of his death not only do some people not see 1904 Olympic participation as a sign 9f notability, they do not even see it as something that you include in basic bio detail so not even defining. That might be reading too close, but it still is surprising that there is no mention of the Olympics there. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Too be fair that is more a funeral announcement than a true obituary. Still the total non-mention of the Olympic role would seem less surprising if it was from much later and he had a much longer medical career. Here it seems to indicate that the Olympics were not viewed in the same way in the 1910s as they are now in the 2020s. Although from this one data point I cannot tell if this was true of all Olympics, or if 1904 was an especial case, and of course one data point does not tell us very much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is interesting. The obituary is on the third page of the paper, and doesn't appear to have been paid which suggests some level of prominence, although I don't believe it constitutes WP:SIGCOV itself. I'll have a look, see what else I can find. As for what it suggests about the Olympics, possibly - although I'm not sure modern obituaries would consistently mention merely competing in the Olympics. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I found a full length obituary, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any additional coverage, unless you were able to find it? BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding Tritle, I found some significant coverage and deprodded it, but I'm not sure its enough to meet WP:GNG. Further, there is still no explanation as to why he played Tennis at that Olympics, though I assume it was due to his membership of the St Louis Athletics Club. BilledMammal (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- K. Woerner is another example that the sports reference source says his full name is just the letter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Frank Raab I did a search for him. I came up with a clearly different Frank Raab who was a local level head of water distribution in Oklahoma, and that was about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Prodded both. For common names, I've started to limit searches to the year they competed, and to obituaries in the year the died; if nothing can be found in either, it is likely that they aren't notable, and very likely that they aren't notable for competing in the Olympics. It is possible that a search limited in such a manner could miss something, but I believe the chance is sufficiently low that it isn't worth spending hours reading hundreds of news paper articles about other people. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Brought George Stadel to AFD; they meet WP:NATH, so prod is not suitable, but I cannot find anything even approaching significant coverage, though I may have found some passing mentions from 1906. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I/P
Yeah I know to edit the area you need a thick skin but still Its a shame that you avoiding the area wikipedia needs a capable editors there. I hope you reconsider. Shrike (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
MOS:COMMONALITY discussion
Kia ora - I couldn't help but notice that you've made a lot of recent edits which have removed terms with Māori origins from articles. These terms have distinct meanings from what you've replaced them with, and are commonly used in New Zealand English (which the articles should be using) when referring to those specific topics. Please refrain from making such edits in the future. Turnagra (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Turnagra:; I made the changes as required by WP:COMMONALITY, in order to allow all our readers, not just those from New Zealand, to understand the article - see the examples of Spectacles and Crore, both of which apply here. Further, the global English that I replaced them with does hold the same meaning and match use in reliable sources, but I have no objection to tweaking the wording if you believe there is another that would be more appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it is in keeping with WP:COMMONALITY. This isn't an instance where there are different terms globally for the same thing (eg. spectacles, which are known by glasses when they exist elsewhere), but rather one where it's an example unique to New Zealand, where they are known almost exclusively as kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori. As they only exist in NZ, we should be using the common names for the topics there per MOS:TIES, which are unquestionably the aforementioned terms. We can explain the term if we think it's needed, but a better approach would be to make sure that Kōhanga Reo has an article to explain it (as Kura Kaupapa Māori does) if people are interested.
- Replacing kawanatanga with governance is a separate issue given that the translation of those terms is a foundational aspect of many claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, and changing one for the other could be interpreted as going against WP:NPOV so we'd need to give more thought on how best to address that. Turnagra (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable New Zealand sources describe these as I did, which both supports the argument that this is the correct term alternative term, and that it is part of New Zealand English - whether it is the common word or not does not matter to WP:COMMONALITY, with crore being far more common than ten million in India, and yet we prefer "ten million" as very few readers outside of India will understand what Crore means, even though we have an article explaining it and we can explain it in text. I don't see an issue here, though I see your point regarding kawanatanga. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Given the range of articles and topics you've done this on I'm not sure which specific term you're referring to when you mention 'reliable NZ sources' so I can't speak to that, though I will note that in the case of Kōhanga reo that term is almost exclusively used - if the term "Māori language preschool" is used, it's almost always as an explanatory statement and not as the name for that specific institution. The article for Secondary school isn't at "School for ages 11-18", and the article for IHOP isn't at "breakfast-based restaurant chain". As for crore, we do use that in several articles relating to Indian topics, particularly when referring to valuations of companies. We generally have an explanation / conversion with it, which I'm happy enough to do (and I generally do when mentioning, for instance, that a lake is recognised as a mahinga kai). I'm going to open a discussion at the WPNZ noticeboard about the best way to resolve the kawanatanga issue given the NPOV concerns there, as I think that's a specific area where more input would be valuable. Turnagra (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Turnagra: The difference with IHOP is that it the name of the place, rather than a classifier. For example, the name is "Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Tamarongo", the classifier that all readers, not just New Zealand readers, will understand is "Māori language school". The difference with "Secondary school" is that all readers will understand what it refers to.
- I will also ask; how did you notice those changes? I see that you have never edited any of the pages I made those changes on. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I keep track of many pages relating to NZ, even if I haven't edited them previously - though I'm not sure how that's relevant. My point is more that we don't intentionally use less accurate terms when there is a better term available, especially when such a term is what's used in NZ English per MOS:TIES. Turnagra (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't entirely answer my question; how did you come across those particular pages? BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I had a few of them on my watchlist, and then when I saw the edits were made by the same user I checked for other instances - as any editor would do when seeing such edits. But again, I don't see how that's relevant unless you're trying to case WP:ASPERSIONS. Turnagra (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- The relevance is that I had some concerns about WP:HOUNDING, and I hope you can understand why. However, your explanation is reasonable, and as long as it doesn't become part of a broader pattern my concerns are addressed; thank you.
- To return to the main topic, can I ask how "Māori language school" is less accurate than "Kura Kaupapa Māori"? BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, I didn't even realise that WP:HOUNDING was a thing - I've had concerns about other users against me in that regard in the past but didn't think to look into grounds to call them out.
- I think the issue is that kura kaupapa Māori aren't just Māori language schools, they're a different approach to education that reflects tikanga and kaupapa Māori practices. Saying that they're Māori language schools overly simplifies the notion of these schools, and implies that they're simply western schools taught in a different language rather than a unique approach to education. This is similar with Kōhanga Reo as well, where they're more than just Māori language facilities but are far more grounded in te ao Māori. Turnagra (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is a good point; would "Māori school" be more appropriate then? Looking into the use of that naming convention, it appears to typically refer to a school taught in a certain system; an "American school" is taught in the American system and a "British school" is taught in the British system. BilledMammal (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's better but it still doesn't really work - the examples you listed are both their own distinct school systems, instead of a type of school within a wider system. Kura kaupapa Māori are still fundamentally part of the NZ school system instead of their own thing, just as how a Steiner school or a Catholic school would be. It also introduces ambiguity, as someone could equally interpret "Māori school" to be a western school with a majority Māori roll. Kura kaupapa Māori unambiguously refers to this specific approach to education, and any uncertainty should be resolved by the preview when linked to the associated article. Turnagra (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think your specific examples of "Catholic school" and "Steiner school" support the notion that readers will correctly understand "Māori school"; they understand that these are schools with a different approach to education, and will understand the same thing about "Māori school". BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's better but it still doesn't really work - the examples you listed are both their own distinct school systems, instead of a type of school within a wider system. Kura kaupapa Māori are still fundamentally part of the NZ school system instead of their own thing, just as how a Steiner school or a Catholic school would be. It also introduces ambiguity, as someone could equally interpret "Māori school" to be a western school with a majority Māori roll. Kura kaupapa Māori unambiguously refers to this specific approach to education, and any uncertainty should be resolved by the preview when linked to the associated article. Turnagra (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is a good point; would "Māori school" be more appropriate then? Looking into the use of that naming convention, it appears to typically refer to a school taught in a certain system; an "American school" is taught in the American system and a "British school" is taught in the British system. BilledMammal (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I had a few of them on my watchlist, and then when I saw the edits were made by the same user I checked for other instances - as any editor would do when seeing such edits. But again, I don't see how that's relevant unless you're trying to case WP:ASPERSIONS. Turnagra (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't entirely answer my question; how did you come across those particular pages? BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Māori language school currently redirects to Kura Kaupapa Māori, but could reasonably also refer to Native schools (or church/missionary schools) prior to 1867, which played a huge role in spreading literacy in the Māori language.-gadfium 08:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is a good point; might be better as a disambiguation page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I keep track of many pages relating to NZ, even if I haven't edited them previously - though I'm not sure how that's relevant. My point is more that we don't intentionally use less accurate terms when there is a better term available, especially when such a term is what's used in NZ English per MOS:TIES. Turnagra (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Given the range of articles and topics you've done this on I'm not sure which specific term you're referring to when you mention 'reliable NZ sources' so I can't speak to that, though I will note that in the case of Kōhanga reo that term is almost exclusively used - if the term "Māori language preschool" is used, it's almost always as an explanatory statement and not as the name for that specific institution. The article for Secondary school isn't at "School for ages 11-18", and the article for IHOP isn't at "breakfast-based restaurant chain". As for crore, we do use that in several articles relating to Indian topics, particularly when referring to valuations of companies. We generally have an explanation / conversion with it, which I'm happy enough to do (and I generally do when mentioning, for instance, that a lake is recognised as a mahinga kai). I'm going to open a discussion at the WPNZ noticeboard about the best way to resolve the kawanatanga issue given the NPOV concerns there, as I think that's a specific area where more input would be valuable. Turnagra (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable New Zealand sources describe these as I did, which both supports the argument that this is the correct term alternative term, and that it is part of New Zealand English - whether it is the common word or not does not matter to WP:COMMONALITY, with crore being far more common than ten million in India, and yet we prefer "ten million" as very few readers outside of India will understand what Crore means, even though we have an article explaining it and we can explain it in text. I don't see an issue here, though I see your point regarding kawanatanga. BilledMammal (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wingnut (politics) 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Aage Rubæk-Nielsen
The removal of the proposal do delete the article on Aage Rubæk-Nielsen illustrates to me that we need to update other sport notability criteria so they actually stop assuming all Olympians are default notable just for participating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: Agreed; it isn't a reasonable predictor of notability. However, I'm not sure whether to add it as proposal 10 under the current proposals for NSPORT, or if it is best to wait for the results of those and then open a new discussion. Thoughts? BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a link where I can see this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS BilledMammal (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a link where I can see this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: Regarding redirects, under current policy I believe most of these redirects are appropriate; a larger discussion would need to occur if you prefer to delete them, as this is a case that I don't believe was considered when that policy was written. BilledMammal (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
My biggest worry is that if we leave the redirects with categories intact we will end up with some categories that are all redirects. I am also not convinced it helps to send people to a statement the person competed. Most existing name redirects are to musical groups the person was in or to articles or a production group, writing pair or the like. At least of redirects with a birth year included. Actually almost half of those are to articles about a death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reading Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, most of those redirects should be deleted. These are articles considered not notable, so they should only be categorized within the list they are directed to - for instance, Abolghasem Sakhdari should only be in the category Wrestlers at the 1948 Summer Olympics. I think it should be fine, the only issue will be going through all those articles to make it happen. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Olympian PRODs/AfDs
While I agree the Olympians you are PRODing/AFDing are non-notable, please consider redirection as an alternative to deletion where a suitable target exists. Would also save us the trouble of all of these AfD discussions. Although such redirections have on occasion been revered, there are plenty of cases where they haven't been as well so that would be an easier and more useful solution. Smartyllama (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I normally only AFD when notability is presumed through some aspect of WP:NSPORTS, or the PROD is challenged, but I will use redirects more in place of the PROD - thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Then we have cases like Luis Mantilla, which was reverted from a redirect. There is no substantial source added, just another mention in a bare directory. The article still lacks any Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder if that violates Lugnuts restriction on creating articles from redirects? BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: Brought it to AFD myself, as I couldn't find any sources that indicated notability. BilledMammal (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder if that violates Lugnuts restriction on creating articles from redirects? BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Then we have cases like Luis Mantilla, which was reverted from a redirect. There is no substantial source added, just another mention in a bare directory. The article still lacks any Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Arthur Lindegren is another redirect that was reverted. No sources providing Sigcov have been added to the article. Is this [5] that has not been added as a source, but was tagged by the reverted, really Sigcov. This is a local insterest story that involves an interview of the with a local participant in the last Olympics, mainly to give local color to a story about the Olympics. I do not think this constitutes SigCov. I really hope subproposals 5 and 6 pass, at least 5. Although some of this boils down to people misidentifying things as SigCov that are clearly not. Oh well, we have articles sourced only to IMDb and we have articles that have been tagged since before Jan. 1, 2010 as having no sources, the problems with Wikipedia go beyond Sports. Althogh with about half of all BLPs on sports figures they are a big problem. Of course I have no way of knowing how many of those are only thought to be BLPs because so many people vanish after a very short and not well covered participation in sport, so we have a lot of articles on sports people who are dead, but we just cannot source that because no one has noticed them at all since they competed in the 1964 Olympics (and they were barely noticed then), but since they would only be roughly 78 if alive, it is far too soon to apply any presumed death on them, so the articles will just languish another 12+ years in Living people, even though we have no evidence of them being alive for over 50 years. Which is why it is good we stopped default notability for non-Olympic medalists, but it is doing little good if we assert that there are all sorts of other default notabilities that can continue in the face of no Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed that one from the discussion at the Village Pump; I've pinged BeanieFan to see if they found any significant coverage; I'll have a look myself as well, and if they didn't, and if I can't, I think I'll AFD it myself assuming you don't get there first. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unlikely, this one a day AfD makes me have to wait a long time between them, I will not hit 24 hours until about 20 UTC. I also had a IMDb only sourced actor in mind for my nomination today, but I may have lost track of who it was. There are lots of under sourced articles on a whole slew of topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- One a day AFD? BilledMammal (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it is a rule that was imposed on me years ago because I got mad at how the pro-football people were treating my AfDs on football players. I will admit I over reacted and should have been more calm. I think that was in 2017. Once in like 2019 someone opened an ANI on me because it was only 23 hours between nominations. It is insane how long this restriction has been held against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- It has been five years; it might be time to appeal? Although, I would suggest waiting till the Lugnuts discussion is closed to avoid overlap. BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it is a rule that was imposed on me years ago because I got mad at how the pro-football people were treating my AfDs on football players. I will admit I over reacted and should have been more calm. I think that was in 2017. Once in like 2019 someone opened an ANI on me because it was only 23 hours between nominations. It is insane how long this restriction has been held against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- One a day AFD? BilledMammal (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unlikely, this one a day AfD makes me have to wait a long time between them, I will not hit 24 hours until about 20 UTC. I also had a IMDb only sourced actor in mind for my nomination today, but I may have lost track of who it was. There are lots of under sourced articles on a whole slew of topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed that one from the discussion at the Village Pump; I've pinged BeanieFan to see if they found any significant coverage; I'll have a look myself as well, and if they didn't, and if I can't, I think I'll AFD it myself assuming you don't get there first. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hans Martens is yet another redirect I made that was reverted without adding any substantial sources. The sources there are only sports reference and Olympia. No Sigcov at all. Also reverted by Lugnuts. How is his returning these articles to stub status without adding any Sigcov any different then his going around and creating new stubs?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Rudolf Markušić was also reverted with no Sigcov added. Another editor claimed he did several of these without getting reverted. This is starting to feel like a special hounding of me to stop me from doing this. Which seems likely, considering recently this same editor opened 6 AfDs almost siultaneously, failed to notify me about at least some of them, and in one of them said that my article on an elected state superintendent of education was in some way spam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Smartyllama: Thoughts on these recent redirect reverts, in case I am missing something? BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: If Lugnuts is hounding JPL, then that's a behavioral issue, not a deletion/redirection/ATD issue, and I really don't want to get into that kind of drama. That being said, Lugnuts' conduct has no bearing on what the ultimate fate of these articles should be. If a redirect was appropriate before (and I agree with JPL that it was), it's still the appropriate solution. I can confirm however, that Lugnuts did not revert redirects that I created, and has !voted redirect on several Olympian AfDs created by other users. If JPL has hounding concerns, I suggest he take it to WP:ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, he keeps doing it. He is not adding any additional significant coverage. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am hesitant about ANI. Some people use it to attack the person who brings the nomination. It is also frustrating that Lugnuts has the audacity to claim that these deletion nominations are aimed at him. They are not. They are aimed at the huge overload of articles lacking Sigcov. Sigcov is the requirement of all articles. This is a function of him having flooded the project with permastubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's your call, ultimately. I'm not going to file a complaint on your behalf. But if you want a solution, I don't know what else you can do at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am hesitant about ANI. Some people use it to attack the person who brings the nomination. It is also frustrating that Lugnuts has the audacity to claim that these deletion nominations are aimed at him. They are not. They are aimed at the huge overload of articles lacking Sigcov. Sigcov is the requirement of all articles. This is a function of him having flooded the project with permastubs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Smartyllama: Thank you, I just wanted a third opinion regarding notability. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, he keeps doing it. He is not adding any additional significant coverage. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: If Lugnuts is hounding JPL, then that's a behavioral issue, not a deletion/redirection/ATD issue, and I really don't want to get into that kind of drama. That being said, Lugnuts' conduct has no bearing on what the ultimate fate of these articles should be. If a redirect was appropriate before (and I agree with JPL that it was), it's still the appropriate solution. I can confirm however, that Lugnuts did not revert redirects that I created, and has !voted redirect on several Olympian AfDs created by other users. If JPL has hounding concerns, I suggest he take it to WP:ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Smartyllama: Thoughts on these recent redirect reverts, in case I am missing something? BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I Understand, But Please Let’s Be Fair
I note from the TP of Lugnuts[6] that you have nominated a lot of their articles for deletion can I please ask that you soft pedal for now? Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is because this guy created so many articles it lead to a ban on doing so. They are junk articles, lacking in Sigcov. We have the clear consensus of an RfC that Olympians are not notable. No one is intentionally trying to pick out articles created by Lugnuts. Lugnts just single handedly created these perma-stubs, sometimes at the rate of 1 a minute, and something like 80,000 of them. People are actually going after the non-medaling Olympian structure, and we are doing it insanely slow by any measure. There is no reason to slow down. Wikipedia has way too many articles lacking sigcov period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Although not all the articles being impacted were created by Lugnuts. See Gösta Ölander. We will see how long that redirect stands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- My general impression is that roughly about half of the articles we have on Olympians, at least of those born in 1911, are created by Lugnuts. I have not been closely tracking, so that is a very rought estimate at this point. With the removal of granding all Olympians notability and limiting it only to medalists or those who can be shown to be notable in some other way, a majority of Olympians no longer meet our inclusion criteria. Yet well over 90% had articles before this change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't check whether Lugnuts created an article before nominating it, and I'm not going to start. However, I am planning to slow down nominating articles for a short time, so the number of articles I nominate that were created by Lugnuts should also fall. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is mainly a function of how ubiquitous a stub creator Lugnuts is. For example I just a few minutes ago came upon an article W. E. Lawrence, which was only sourced to IMDb. I then nominated it for deletion. This was found going through the cast lists of films, mainly to try to find articles falsely linked in (I have found an article link that went to a fictional character not a real actor, another that went to a person born 65 years after the film was released, and a few to people who died over 50 years before the film was made, creating a huge number of stub articles with a huge amount of red links is not a good plan for having correct links). Anyway after nominating that article for deletion I found it was created by Lugnuts. I had thought he had limited himself to articles at least somewhat related to sports (he created a large portion of our articles on participants in the Olympic arts competitions for example) but I was wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
José Pamplona
José Pamplona is an example to me of why "medaled with his team", does not seem to always be a reasonable inclusion criteria. He medaled but only actually played in 1 match in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Nikolaos Papanikolaou (athlete)
For the time being I have decided to stop trying to redirect any article created by Lugnuts. I may nominate one for deletion today. I am not sure. Anyway Nikolaos Papanikolaou (athlete) does not even tell us where he was born. Considering how high a percentage of Greeks in the 1930s born before 1922 were born in what is now Turkey before the population exchange, and also how many Greeks moved from Egypt and Bulgaria in the early 1920s as well, this is an especially glaring lack of information point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vision therapy 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Henrique Camarago
Henrique Camargo was redirected while I was in the process of creating the AfD nomination. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrique Camargo I explain why this is not at all a good target for redirection. It is a messy situation, maybe made messier by the fact the creator of the article who did this redirecting is Lugnuts, the same editor who a while ago accused me of using someone else as my proxy to nominate lots of articles for deletion, who admitted to deliberately going through a list of the articles I created to pick out ones to nominate for deletion as a revenge action, and who as recently as last week was reverting any attempt I made to change Olympic articles that did not meat the medal level and lacked GNG to redirects as was advised by some other editors. This preemprtive creating of a redirect seems very disruptive, especially since it removes the link from the article to the deletion discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's certainly out of process, and I've reverted it on that ground; hopefully he will listen to the edit summary and stop boldly redirecting articles nominated for deletion. By the way, you should get WP:TWINKLE - it makes it much easier to nominate articles for deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is very frustrating that some people try to redirect these articles even when it is clear that the person in question is no where near being the primary use of the name in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
"Partisan group"
Calling WP:FOOTY a "partisan group" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) is ridiculous, especially without any justification (other than you wanting an excuse to call any keep votes invalid). It's valid to notify a WikiProject, and it'll show up in that project's article alerts anyway, but your language against this WikiProject is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I believe I've responded to all these points in the deletion discussion; do you want to continue the discussion there or here? BilledMammal (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
GEOLAND
I've started an essay on if administrative units that have the same name as a settlement should be split or not, see Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements. As you can see Hatfield Peverel lists 3 different populations, 1 for just "Hatfield Peverel", one that includes Nounsley and the last that is for the administrative unit. The 1st 2 figures are similar to the Wivenhoe, Tasmania example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadow Oaks, Florida in that they are for a settlement not an administrative unit but anyway the settlement and division are combined in 1 article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bible 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Your move request
Hey there,
I just closed your RM as successful. However, I did not realize, until after the closure, that the destination page is a DAB. Since KaMatsamo/Schoemansdal is clearly not the primary topic, I had to improvise by using a regional disambiguator (Mpumalanga). I hope this expedient solution is acceptable, if not I will undo my closure and reopen the discussion. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Colonestarrice: That was my mistake; if I had checked the target before proposing the move, my move request would have been to the title you choose - thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:US Census population 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Add a image (logo) to a page
Hey bro I know how to create a page but I want you to help me on adding a logo I will send you a logo but I want you to add you to the page Feraahub (page) B.matias brown (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Yes 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Pinged you by mistake
I pinged you by mistake in my talk page, when I was addressing another editor. I do apologize. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
John Newman (ice hockey)
John Newman (ice hockey) is the type of undersourced with no significant coverage article we have on several people who played with the NHL. It is staggering how many such articles we have in so many sports.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous. I had a look on newspaper.com, and couldn't find any significant coverage, although his common name didn't help. Once NSPORT is closed I might nominate it - although I am considering as a follow up to that discussion a proposal to set a minimum requirement for what significant coverage is. BilledMammal (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, a past RfC suggested that even with passing a NSPORT guideline, articles still need to meet GNG. I might nominate it tomorrow, I already reached my quota of 1 for today. Any idea what exact location I would have to post a notice to appeal the deletion nomination of 1 at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
WikiProjects
Howdy. If you wish to inform WP:HOCKEY at their talkpage, what they can & can't do? By all means, do so. Overall, I'd rather avoid a fight between two WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- So would I, but we shouldn't suggest that one wikiproject is controlling over another to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Someone has messed up your post, at the related ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't recall you being involved in the topic-in-question, in the past. Why are you now? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't feel that the ANI thread accurately represented the situation. BilledMammal (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- So far, you seem to be in the minority, at that ANI report. Please, be careful that you're not seen as an obstructionist. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will be. BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- So far, you seem to be in the minority, at that ANI report. Please, be careful that you're not seen as an obstructionist. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I know you won't listen to me, because so far you haven't been. But, you're going to be stirring up a hornet's nest. Again, remember I told you so. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- We need a consensus on this question, and I believe the discussion doesn't need to be a hornets nest, though comments like this do not help. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Leonida Pallotta
Then we have articles like Leonida Pallotta, a footballer with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- That article has had a no sources tag for 7 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Sports
I am very frustrated at the fact that so many sports articles are allowed to stand just because of SNGs, even at AfD, even when no significant coverage is shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I am frustrated
It seems to me that we allow way too many editors to over and over and over again falsely claim that signficant coverage lacking articles meet the sports SNGs. I am beginning to think we should ban project notification at all on deletion discussions. There is no easy way to counter the cabal of pro-sports table spernanent sub-stub editors who can easily be notified because of the rule allowing the notificaiton of "relevant Wikipedia projects". Whereas there seems to be no allowance for those who want to get rid of sub-stubs to notify eachother about relevant deletion proposals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've been considering a proposal to modify WP:CANVASS that would it clear that the examples listed under WP:APPNOTE are not exceptions to WP:INAPPNOTE, which should address the issue of notifying partisan wikiprojects both at AFD and at other formal discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I also have to wonder if the statement that limited posting is best makes sense. A lot of this is fueled by the "played the game professionally for a day" standards. NSPORTS way more than some other guidelines is designed to capture a huge number of people who we know very little about. It is probably the lead cause of us having articles on deceased people who we categorize as living people. At least our actor and actress notability is meant to exclude most people who appeared in a significant role in one film and then moved on to a less visialbe career. There the big issue may be over counting significant roles, and also letting articles stand for years with IMDb as the only source, but at least the guidelines says "multiple" "significant" roles in "notable" productions. We also seem to have come too close to treating all commerically released films as notable, even when we cannot source the articles beyond IMDb. Still with NSPORT especially the football guideline has gone to crazy in what it counts as leagues that make players default notable, while at the same time allowing inclusion with just 1 game, and not at all requiring that the player themself had a "significant" role in the games they played.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Why
why did you do that Votalay (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The number of fighters from Albania was very limited compared to the Egyptians, according to historian Trevor Debkewe, as their number was 600. At the highest estimate, compared to more than 95,000 Egyptians, so it is unreasonable to include them, according to the Ottoman archives, the Egyptians numbered more than 99,000.
The number of fighters from Albania was very limited compared to the Egyptians, according to historian Trevor Debkewe, as their number was 600. At the highest estimate, compared to more than 95,000 Egyptians, so it is unreasonable to include them, according to the Ottoman archives, the Egyptians numbered more than 99,000. Votalay (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
For this reason, it is unreasonable to include it because the Ottoman army itself had forty thousand fighters from Albania according to Trevor Pin, a military historian and Ottoman archive. Votalay (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Please stop WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING
Hey BilledMammal, I find it very strange that you tend to show up on posts I edit frequently. I hope you can see how opposing almost every edit I make can be seen as disheartening and rude. I do not think I am being unreasonable in asking that you slow down and use the talk page.
You recently reversed my edit where I cleaned up Orania, Northern Cape and you added back tons of promotional, superfluous material. I personally think that information works more as a brochure for their white nationalism project more than an encyclopedia entry. You did not elaborate or expand on why you reversed my edit. You said it needed to be reduced but not removed entirely but then proceeded to do none of that. It is clear WP:STONEWALLING and I ask that you respect me as I am respecting you. Desertambition (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am unclear what you are referring to; I believe the only area we are in frequent opposition is requested moves. As for Orania, I believe topics such as demographics, religion, culture, and education are all WP:DUE, and should be edited, not removed.
- If you have future complaints, please take it to ANI, and if you want to discuss content, please take it to the article talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
- Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
- A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
- Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
- GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
- Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed
Rfc
Are you ok with the wording? I was a little disappointed by the WMF response so I thought I'd go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Worded almost the same as I would have worded it. And I was also disappointed by the response; they don't appear to know what is happening. BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- They may have a default "don't get involved in actual WP-content" approach. My worry is that the "main community lead and partner on this project" may not come at this issue from the WP-POV. Time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
New message from Mhawk10
Message added 06:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Mhawk10 (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I am tired of the attacks
So I creaed this a deletion nomination of an article that looked like this:
Christopher Campbell | |
---|---|
Born | Dublin, Ireland | 9 December 1908
Died | 1972 (aged 63–64) Dublin, Ireland |
Nationality | Irish |
Occupation | Painter |
Christopher Campbell (9 December 1908 – 1972) was an Irish painter. His work was part of the painting event in the art competition at the 1948 Summer Olympics.[1]
- sorry for messing up your page with this post. This whole thing is just plain frustrating. Any attempt to defend my actions will be used to attack me in some way. Everything is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Christopher Campbell". Olympedia. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
The above is the exact state of the article when I nominated it for deletion. I am now being attacked as somehow violating the overly broad rule against me editing articles related to religion because of some other actions of this person that were not even mentioned in the article, by the very editor who created this stub in the first place. This is very, very frustrating. I am tired of people being able to create druk without any consequences and those of us who try to clean up the druk being mercilessly and constantly attacked. The main point of these attacks seems to be to try to get people to stop AfD nominations totally so that sub-standard articles can remain on Wikipedia without any challenge. This is very, very, very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am really tired of an editor who put in less than even sub-par work on creating an article getting to attack others for how much effort they may have put into nominating the article for deletion. I am really tired of people using these topic pans to try and attack me at every turn. The whole process of how things are going on Wikipedia is very frustrating. Every effort to remove the druk of Olympics related articles is stymied by the fact that they are so overshelmingly druk that was never even attempted to be improved that it is hard to know if any given article will be drek or not, and the effort to determine this is several times the level of effort put into creating the articles in the first place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is frustrating, and very disingenuous and hypocritical on their part. I would suggest adding the "violates WP:NOTDATABASE reason" to future nominations. It is a valid reason for delete, and WP:BEFORE does not apply to articles that are nominated for WP:NOT violations - although I do a WP:BEFORE search anyway, as I know you do.
- I am considering a VPP RFC that will propose draftifying all articles on Olympians not covered by WP:NOLYMPICS that are sourced solely to databases, replacing the article at the current location with a redirect to the sport and Olympics they competed in. Now is not the right time for it - tensions are too high - but it needs to be done eventually, as working through the backlog at AFD is not viable. I'm currently working through 1908 Olympic Team Gymnasts, and even nominating half a dozen a day that is going to take months. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- This one is actually from the related but not quite the same Olympian arts competitors. The Olympian AArts competition fizzeled after a few attempts. They had to do art in some way related to sport. I think I rushed this one, but the fact that it was so not releft at all of the scope of the person, only mentioning that they competed in the Olymmpics and not anything about any other competition when I found it, leads to another conclusion. It is not just that Wikipedia has such a high number of sports bios, some percentage of sports bios are on people who were at least if not more notable for other things but the bio only focused on the sports issue. So even in its actual content Wikipedia is over focused on sports. Wikipedia bios should cover the whole person as best we can from reliable sources, with augmenting by other avialable non-GNG adding to sources under some conditions. Nothing like this happens when we have an editor churning out new bios at a rate of about 1 a minute, which was the rate of creation of the editor who created this article. I think for the time being plodding through the Olympian bios is what will need to be done. I wish there was a way to recruit a few more people to help with nominating articles for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Articles of Deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Usablenet Elijah.Kerr-Brown (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am a worker for UsableNet. I saw that UsableNet was deleted from Wikipedia for not having notability. We did not do a great job of updating articles, but we are one of the pioneers in digital accessibility products and have been mentioned and used as a reputable source in the digital accessibility space for 20 years. Here are some articles that mention our report highlighting digital accessibility trends and lawsuits. We are hoping to have our page restored, and do not know if you have the ability to do that. Let us know if you have any questions or if there is anything else you need from us. [1] - UI and Ux trends to follow [2] - ADP Settlement offer framework for future digital accessibility agreements [3] - Discussions on how the accessible legal landscape is changing for retail companies [4] - Our partnership with TCC Global
Let me know if there is anything else you need. Thanks Elijah.Kerr-Brown (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Elijah.Kerr-Brown: I am not able to do so, but you can open a deletion review (for the reason "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"). However, I don't believe it will be successfully based on the sources that are provided; they do not meet the notability requirements for corporations, which is what would be required to recreate or otherwise keep the page.
- Finally, please note that you will need to declare that you have a paid conflict of interest. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://uiuxtrend.com/top-ui-ux-trends-2022-to-follow/
- ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/adp-settlement-offers-framework-for-future-digital-accessibility-agreements-11642699462
- ^ https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2022/01/13/website-accessibility-problems-create-legal-peril-for-online-retailers/
- ^ https://en.prnasia.com/releases/global/ttc-and-usablenet-announce-organizational-partnership-304271.shtml
Fernando Huergo
This is an interesting case. When I search for Fernando Huergo I come up with information on a contemporary Jazz musicians in google. I am not sure if he is notable, but if he is he would probably be the primary search term. When I search in google books my first hit is this [7] which is a note about a letter that was either to or from what seems likely to be this Fernando Huergo, but I am not sure I can be sure of this. Also he is in a category for being a Pan American game medalist, but no text in the article itself seems to say anything about that. This source [8] does support that he was part of a team of g from Argentina who got a silver in the 1951 Pan American Games Sabre competition. I am not sure if Silver at the Pan American games is quite enough to be sports notable, but we would still want something more than a bare name in a table which is all I have found so far. I am suspecting there might be some actual in-depth sourcing, but I have not found it yet. I was wondering if you thought you might be able to find some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I know this is a big issue. I am not going to bring it to AfD until someone else looks over it. However I am thinking the more recent Fernando Huergo may in fact be notable and the primary use, and at best this article should be moved to a disambiguifier. This is one of the results of Wikipedia being flooded with low source articles on sports people, it takes over name space from more notable non-sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Really odd AfD arguments
I have just come across someone at AfD argue we cannot delete the article because there is a rule against deleting long standing redirects (which is about redirects, not articles), and that an article that has existed nearly 2 years is long standing enough that we can only change it into a redirect, and we cannot delete it, except I guess under some extreme circumstances. This is basically proposing a grandfather clause for Wikipedia, even though we have had articles exist since 2005 with no sources at all, so existing, even for overa decade, is not a sign of notability, it is a sign that Wikipedia grow too fast with too little regulartion in 2004-2006 and we have never got a hold on the problems that were seeded in those years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Why exactly did we choose to consider Olympic Medalists notable?
What exactly was the logic to consider Olympic Medalists notable. I am asking because I just came across Karl Jansen who won a bronze medal in the 1936 Olympics. The article is sourced only to sportsreference.com. I have not done a search to see what else I could find, but I am just wondering if there was any good reason to supposed medalists were actually getting significant coverage, or if it was just a compromise between those who wanted us to actually require signifiacant coverage, and those who wanted to continue having articles on every person in the Olympics ever. I do not think the later adeautely understand that there are far in excess of 150,000 people who were in the Olympics, and before 1988, and even more so before 1965, Olympic rules were designed to exclude professional athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just kibbitzing here, and I wasn't paying attention to sports notabiiity discussions back then, but I suspect that it is the same principle I've seen invoked in discussions, e.g., of Nobel Economics prize winners, namely, encyclopaedicity. Many editors believe that certain classes of subjects - recognized places, Nobel winners, and apparently Olympic medalists among them - are inherently encyclopaedic and that, as long as their claim to significance is reliably sourced, they should have a standalone article even if the sourcing is otherwise below the standard we would prefer. Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of couse, even Olympic gold medalists are way more numerous than nobel prize winners. Nobel also does not give out silver and bronze, so the analogy is weak.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understood my comment as intended. I wasn't offering an analogy for why Olympic medalists should be considered notable; I was offering an opinion on
What exactly was the logic to consider Olympic Medalists notable
- I think that logic was encyclopaedicity. One can, of course, object to the application of that logic (as I personally do in the case of Nobel Economics winners but not in the case of populated places; YMMV). Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)- Sorry to jump in, but I've always found this interesting. From memory, a lot of the specific notability requirements came from an understanding that sometimes there were sources that would mean that a subject would meet the notability requirements, but they might be hard to find. So with some topics (like Olympic medallists) the argument was that logically anyone who won an Olympic medal must - almost by definition - have been covered sufficiently that sources will exist, even if we can't find them right now. This was back when it was common to assume that we could find sources if only we had access to the right publications. Today the focus has moved a bit, but originally the special notability requirements were really shorthand for "if they meet this, sources will exist, even if we haven't found them yet". - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't around for many of those early discussions, but it is certainly that many SNGs, as currently written, are not intended to "predict" sourcing. GEOLAND, NNUMBER and NORG - to name three - do not work in this way, and neither do several of the NBIO SNGs, like NPROF. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to jump in, but I've always found this interesting. From memory, a lot of the specific notability requirements came from an understanding that sometimes there were sources that would mean that a subject would meet the notability requirements, but they might be hard to find. So with some topics (like Olympic medallists) the argument was that logically anyone who won an Olympic medal must - almost by definition - have been covered sufficiently that sources will exist, even if we can't find them right now. This was back when it was common to assume that we could find sources if only we had access to the right publications. Today the focus has moved a bit, but originally the special notability requirements were really shorthand for "if they meet this, sources will exist, even if we haven't found them yet". - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understood my comment as intended. I wasn't offering an analogy for why Olympic medalists should be considered notable; I was offering an opinion on
- Of couse, even Olympic gold medalists are way more numerous than nobel prize winners. Nobel also does not give out silver and bronze, so the analogy is weak.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Odd Closes
- While the close to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Bonati (gymnast) is right, the way it is discussed seems odd. Of the 5 people who commented, 4 favored deletion, and 1 who is the main source of our permastub articles on Olympians, favored a redirect. The way it was discussed in the close does not seem to reflect how overwhelmingly strong the opposition to the redirect was. Also, is Lugnuts forbidden to create new redirects?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are just forbidden from turning redirects into articles. I was tempted to take some of the disambiguated redirects to RFD, but it doesn't seem worth the effort. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
March 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is not harassment to raise concerns about possible canvassing in a discussion; indeed, it is required to discuss it there, as it is important information for the closer. Further, I note you haven't struck all of your incorrect accusations about me collapsing that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm
This SPI concerns you. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- The SPI was negative and I've apologised to Störm for barking up the wrong tree. Just letting you know that I will be taking the case to ANI, per advice given at the SPI, and I will present you with a formal notification when that is done. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz
This SPI concerns you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)@No Great Shaker: [9]... And you should probably read my own comment there too. Accusing others of being sockpuppets is not likely to gain you any sympathy, nor make the debate about mass microstubs and overly inclusive sports articles go away. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The SPI has closed in your favour so, as promised at ANI, I apologise for the inconvenience you were caused by it. I felt justified because of the circumstances of your evident AFD knowledge, which strongly suggested prior experience. I suggest you put something on your user page to explain past IP editing, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics
Hello, I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @No Great Shaker: Thank you. Do you know how we can get it added to the category lists in Twinkle and Delsort? BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good question. I wouldn't know about Twinkle but I think, now you've mentioned it, that I've seen how the Delsort category works. Let me look at it and I'll see what I can do. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looking into Twinkle, I think fixing it for Delsort will fix it for Twinkle. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looking further, I'm not so certain. If you have success getting it into Delsort, we will see. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looking into Twinkle, I think fixing it for Delsort will fix it for Twinkle. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good question. I wouldn't know about Twinkle but I think, now you've mentioned it, that I've seen how the Delsort category works. Let me look at it and I'll see what I can do. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:List of Capitals of the British Isles
Hello, BilledMammal. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Capitals of the British Isles, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Edited. BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
False accusations of "revenge AfD"
In the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Fago I was accused of engaging in a "revenge AfD". This is the type of abuse I get for actually trying to implement the consensus determination that Olympians are not notable. It is very frustrating. All the more so because the person who is calling it a "revenge" AfD is the person who blocked every attempt I made before to just redirect these articles. Do you think I should bring this matter to AfD. Someone who created thousands of articles that have since been deemed to be outside the scope of Wikipedia, when they created literally thousands of articles that fall into a very broad category, cannot legitimately claim that they are being targeted. All the more so because yesterday I nominated Stanley Bell for deletion a non-Olympic swimmer that when I nominated it only said he was a competitor in the commonwealth games, source to a source that had just his name in a list, no indication of a medal, and nothing beyond the name, and a behind a paywall mention in a ship manifest. The rhetoric against me here is clearly over the top.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Replied, though I avoided voting due to the risk of some editors seeing this as canvassing - though that was clearly not your intent, and I have since come across the discussion while reviewing AFD's in general. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a competition
Do you really believe you are dealing with this issue in the most mature way possible or do you think that maybe some discussion is warranted? I have almost never made an edit you have agreed with. That is just a fact. You have been WP:HOUNDING me for months and it is plain to see. You are immune from consequences, it's absurd. Desertambition (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- You accuse almost any editor who disagrees with you of hounding and stonewalling; you recently accused Spekkios of that here, and Toddy1 of that here, always without evidence. I note that the two articles that we are currently disagreeing on have been on my watchlist for months. BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Double voting on Port Elizabeth move request
Please consolidate your votes into one post. You cannot vote twice. Thank you. Desertambition (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Apologies if that came off strongly, I just think it appears a bit misleading. Desertambition (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the closer is counting votes, they are closing incorrectly - they'll see that it's the same person, responding to two seperate questions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am asking you politely. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Apologies for using the wrong terminology. Desertambition (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I thought I explained in my edit summary, I'm not going to consolidate my replies as they are addressing different questions; the first is addressing whether the discussion should be open, and the second is stating my position if it is left open. You also shouldn't worry about the closer counting it twice, as they are addressing different questions, and consensus isn't determined by counting votes. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am asking you politely. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Apologies for using the wrong terminology. Desertambition (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Desertambition (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taw 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The revert of April Fools Barnster
The revert of April Fools Barnster | |
Special thanks for reverting an April Fools edit which I agree it was an off-topic proposal. To explain: from Special:Diff/1038332549, Oshwah once referred to me as Abraham Lincoln hence yesterday's talk page edit. That won't happen again, definitely. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC) |
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russian-occupied territories 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Redirect 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for Makhanda, South Africa and Qonce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Makhanda,_South%20Africa
- Too soon, the discussion has been open for five hours. Give other editors a chance to contribute on the talk pages - I note that one has already done so. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
River Timmy
Just wanted to say, I think this was a really excellent analogy that cut to the heart of that MRV. Whether a particular argument is truly "policy-compliant" depends on whether it's supported by the external reality -- in this case, RS usage. If different sides of the argument are relying on conflicting claims about that reality ("X is the most common name in NZ English" vs. "Y is the most common name in NZ English"), then the closer needs to evaluate the evidence presented to support each claim.
I suppose I'm preaching to the choir on this, but just wanted to thank you for what I thought was an eloquent argument, even if it didn't win the day in the end. Colin M (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Colin M: Thank you; it might not have won the day in the end, but it was a discussion worth having. Personally, I think the larger problem is with WP:COMMONALITY, which should require rather than recommend it, but that is a very different debate. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation of divisions
G'day BilledMammal, the reason these units are disambiguated in this way is because there are multiple divisions with that ordinal, in some cases when divisions share an ordinal they have also been different types of divisions across their existence (infantry, motorised, mechanised etc), and no doubt there will be more of them in the future and others that have existed but no-one has created the article for them yet. So, 125th Infantry Division is not a useful title, as it could easily refer to any of the 125th Divisions, all of which were infantry formations at one point on another. The disambiguation guidance used for titling military formation articles is at WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, which recommends using (Wehrmacht) for German WWII formations because (Germany) is often insufficient. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Thank you, I actually noticed that after doing a few, and instead I've been redirecting Infantry Division to Division if other infantry divisions exist (and creating the disambiguation page at Division if appropriate) - I've also reverted some of the other moves I've made, replacing them with redirects, and I intend to review the others. Exceptions are where only two such divisions exist with different names, such as 219th Infantry Division and 164th Marine Brigade (formerly 219th Division), where I follow WP:TWODAB. BilledMammal (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hounding
The whole level of attack thrown on me at the deletion discussion of Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) is quite frustrating. The fact of the matter is I had been watching that discussion for a while. This was not my first time looking at the discussion. It is even more frustrating that I say exactly what was said before me. It is also frustrating that people who vote keep based on false understandings and incorrectly applying current statuses to the deep past seem to just be allow to let such votes clearly done without any deep looking at the issue at hand stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that it is WP:HOUNDING (as I don't believe Nfitz is stalking you, although the IP who replied to this comment might be), but it is uncivil; I hope that in the future people start to focus on the content of the nomination and !vote, rather than focusing on the behaviour of the editor. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hounding?
JShark appears to be hounding me by copying and pasting the same lines in multiple places. It was done on ANI, the Tesla talk page, and on [Talk page]. And they have done this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Excessive_talk_page_spamming_by_JShark But I am nervous to go back to ANI again. I do not know what to do. QRep2020 (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- (I am asking for advice, not implying you or anyone else should do anything about it. Actually, upon further reflection, I am really just getting it all off my chest. Sorry for putting it on your Talk page.) QRep2020 (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is frustrating, and disruptive, but fortunately it seems to have stopped for now; if it continues I suspect they will also have some sort of block applied. BilledMammal (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Lugnuts
Hello BilledMammal -- just wanted to drop a quick note about Lugnuts and specifically his talk page. I know it can be exasperating to deal with him and his approach to editing. I note he has asked you to stay off of his talk page. I think you are absolutely right to continue putting mandatory notices there (such as AfDs), but I'd just like to ask that maybe you try to deal with less mandatory things in other ways. A quick note about your WP:AGF concerns could certainly go on the relevant page, for instance. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate the comment; I've stopped putting AfD notices on his talk page, except when I forgot to check the author and untick the twinkle box, as he has made it clear that he doesn't want those, and takes responsibility if he misses them. I continued to place warnings when I felt they were appropriate, as he didn't clarify that those were also undesired in response to this comment. However, I will do as you suggest, either raising the issue on the article's talk page, or bringing it to WP:ANI or WP:AN3 directly if warranted. BilledMammal (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Moving pages
Hello, BilledMammal. I see you've been disambiguating a lot of Soviet Union army division pages recently. However, you've been skipping a crucial step in the process. Let me use 15th Rifle Division as an example:
- You moved 15th Rifle Division to 15th Rifle Division (Soviet Union). That automatically created a redirect from the old title to the new one. As a result, all the other articles, templates, and redirects on Wikipedia that linked to 15th Rifle Division still worked; they just went through the redirect to the article at its new title. All good!
- But then you edited 15th Rifle Division to make it a disambiguation page. Now all those links from articles and templates, and redirects, are pointing to the disambiguation page instead of the relevant article. To take just one example among several, Inza Revolutionary Division, which was a redirect to the article about the successor division, became a redirect to the disambiguation page instead (until I fixed it).
The step you skipped (call it step 1.5) was to check Special:WhatLinksHere/15th Rifle Division, after you moved the page to the new title but before you edited the old title, and fix all incoming links to the old title so that they pointed to the correct destination article. Please make sure to do this before creating any new disambiguation pages, to avoid creating a bunch of incorrect links that will confuse readers and create unnecessary work for other editors. Thanks! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Russ; thank you for noticing. I've actually been working on that; I first corrected the Soviet divisions template, and once that is done I need to wait for the articles it appears on to update so that I can see which articles have links I need to change, and which articles only have links as part of a template. In the future, I will wait until after the the articles have updated and I've been able to correct all the links before creating the disambiguation pages. BilledMammal (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Although, I realize that I forgot the step entirely for some of the earlier moves, such as Philippine Division, which I see you have since fixed. Apologies, and thank you! I will make sure to get it done in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Your vote on move discussion regarding Al-aqsa
It always good to elaborate you vote if it was taken seriously Shrike (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, done. BilledMammal (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics
Are you planning to eradicate the whole British team? Govvy (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm currently waiting for a response to this request before doing the French team. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cricket isn't my thing, Football is, but you probably know that from my editing behaviour. Even still, when the Olympics started in 1896, that makes it very young for the 1900 games, when you consider the age of the games then. Near all sources will be an offline format such as books, magazines, newspapers of the day. I feel that's going to be a real tough ask for anyone to provide the correct resources to pass GNG on these things. I don't think you're going to get that at all here. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced WP:GNG compliant sources exist, but hopefully there will be WP:SIGCOV of the French players in Le dictionnaire des Médaillés olympiques français. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cricket isn't my thing, Football is, but you probably know that from my editing behaviour. Even still, when the Olympics started in 1896, that makes it very young for the 1900 games, when you consider the age of the games then. Near all sources will be an offline format such as books, magazines, newspapers of the day. I feel that's going to be a real tough ask for anyone to provide the correct resources to pass GNG on these things. I don't think you're going to get that at all here. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I started a new RFC on list of minority governors on the talk page.
Hello I started a new talk page on the RFC, since you are a regular there I was wondering if you could contribute your opinions to it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:44D9:A6D5:9499:B1E7 (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:4812:C99C:7BAD:92EE (talk)
I am getting worn down by people falsely accusing me of being an agent of Putin
So I was editing the article on Lippy Lipshitz. At first I placed him in the category Category:Lithuanian emigrants to South Africa. On further review though I realized he moved from what was then the Russian Empire to what was then Cape Colony in 1908. So I placed him in that category. Someone came along using an IP address and accused me of "putinism" for making this category, which is based on the politcal reality in 1908 when the moved occured. I restored my edit, especially since I was the person who incorrectly placed in the emigration category that was restored. Probably this person using a new IP address came along and again reverted my edit claiming it was "still Putinism". I find it highly objectionable that people are allowed to throw around such attacks on other editors with impunity when all I am doing is trying to make terminology and categories reflect the reality on the ground in the time the events occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Bizarre. That IP needs to focus on the content, not on making personal attacks against the person making the edits. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Craigie, Perth and Kinross
As far as I can see this seems like a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS paragraph 4 applies. While I would agree each option didn't have much support and did have some opposition/doubt, all but (perhaps 1) favoured moving away from the current title, the last seems to weakly suggest keeping on the grounds that they are different types of places but that doesn't have much ground in our policies and guidelines namely that the current title is ambiguous even if they are different types of places and the person suggested "(village)" and "(neighborhood)" instead. While I do accept that there was no consensus on where to move to there was consensus it couldn't stay here. I don't see much point in relisting as it had been open for around 6 weeks and had enough participation. If someone doesn't agree with you're choice perhaps sometime down the line a new RM to improve the qualifier could be made but its probably been discussed enough for now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
FYI
Special:Contributions/138.199.105.22 == Special:Contributions/CorruptCalvin1958 == Special:Contributions/AwesomeAsol2022. You might want to keep an open eye. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Will do, and thank you for correcting the decimal points. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Your technical move request
Hey! I attempted to carry out this request. Please check if I left any loose ends. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Thank you, there are no loose ends. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Reinhold Schmidt
I just nominated Reinhold Schmidt for proposed deltion. Lugnuts has now shown his true colors of trying to keep me from doing any improvement of editing of Wikipedia as much as possible. I have now on multiple occasions asked him to cease and desist from his rude practice of referring to me as "Lambert" instead of as "Mr. Lambert" as I have asked him to do on multiple occasions. It is now clearly a deliberate act of rudeness and disrespect on his part. He is also trying to claim I have singled out articles created by him for deletion, which is utterly absurd. Lots of articles he created are being nominated for deletion because he created literally thousands of articles sourced only to sports tables with less than 5 minutes of work incolved in creating them, and has rightly been banned from creating stub articles. I am fed up with his rudeness and his constant complaining that the junk he created is regularly nominated for deletion. Also his reverting that proposed deletion is basically built on his trying to force me to take it to AfD not because he thinks it should, but because he knows that I am limited to one AfD per 24 hours (he once threatened to take me to ANI over waiting 23 hours and 27 minutes), so he is doing this as part of his long standing campaign to obstruct any and all attempts to remove all the junk articles he flooded Wikipedia with. His constant rudeness and obstruction is becoming very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would recommend against asking him to call you Mr Lambert; most editors won't see him failing to do so as uncivil. Instead, if you don't like to be called by only your last name, I would suggest asking him to call you by your full name, or if you don't mind them being used, your initials?
- It is, however, absurd for him to believe you are singling him out; a similar allegation was made at ANI and I noted
I randomly selected ten articles from here and looking at their history. Of the ten, two had more than a couple of lines of text, neither of which were created by you, while of the remaining eight, seven were created by you. Given that of the articles I've recently nominated for deletion (counting only once articles that had their prod challenged and I then took to AFD) about half were by you, I think it is actually very easy to believe.
- On a different topic, I've realized that handling the non-notable articles one by one is not going to work; instead, I intend to review every participant in the 1908 Olympics and address the ones identified as non-notable as a group, although I haven't had much time to work on it lately - and today, rather than having time to work on it, I found myself reviewing microstubs on cricketers sourced solely to Scores & Biographies by Arthur Haygarth. I'm just finishing up WP:BEFORE and then I'll be prodding a large number of them. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked him to call me Mr. Lambert on multiple occasions. He has refused to comply with this request.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for the talk page stalking, but I just want to concur with BilledMammal here. While I would encourage one and all to address you as you wish, identifying people by a reasonable part of their user name is just kind of the way things go. Is it ideal? No. But I would classify it as annoying but neither uncivil nor actionable. All the best to you both. Dumuzid (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked him multiple times to refer to me as Mr. Lambert. The way he is doing it is clearly being mocking and rude.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for the talk page stalking, but I just want to concur with BilledMammal here. While I would encourage one and all to address you as you wish, identifying people by a reasonable part of their user name is just kind of the way things go. Is it ideal? No. But I would classify it as annoying but neither uncivil nor actionable. All the best to you both. Dumuzid (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked him to call me Mr. Lambert on multiple occasions. He has refused to comply with this request.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I specficly asked him to start calling me Mr. Lambert for I do not know what time on 15:46 GMT on May 25th. At 16:10 GMT he again refered to me in the same disrespectful manner. This is getting tiring. As is his accusation that people are targeting articles he created for any other reason that he created a huge number of articles on people that have not had coverage adequate to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Claire Danes 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Italian Social Movement 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Lugnuts constant stopping of everything I do
Lugnuts just revered 7 porposed deletion I had made. Some of these were super far from any subject related to any of his edits. He seems to be destermined to prevent me from ever making any improvements to Wikipedia. He is also persisting in his refering to me in a way I have explicitly asked him to stop doing and in his refusal to refer to me as Mr. Lambert. This is getting very, very, very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The most galling case is Laurie Millsom, which is an article with no sources at all. Another one is Takebhi Miturai, a Japanese businessperson. Lugnuts has never shown any interest in such a topic. There it is a very clear case of his trying to stop me from making contribgutions, especailly since he knows about the insame 1 nomination at AfD a day limit, and he seeks to exploit every possible way to slow the progress of deletion on the rubbish articles he made, in part because he knows that some editors assume the state of Wikipedia is correct and will argue to keep on the basis of other rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Takeshi Mitarai is the name I meant to link above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The most galling case is Laurie Millsom, which is an article with no sources at all. Another one is Takebhi Miturai, a Japanese businessperson. Lugnuts has never shown any interest in such a topic. There it is a very clear case of his trying to stop me from making contribgutions, especailly since he knows about the insame 1 nomination at AfD a day limit, and he seeks to exploit every possible way to slow the progress of deletion on the rubbish articles he made, in part because he knows that some editors assume the state of Wikipedia is correct and will argue to keep on the basis of other rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that the ANI has somehow become an attack on me, instead of a review of Lugnuts uncivil behavior, is very frustrating. The fact that it seems to just keep going with more and more proposals being thrown up but no resolution is also frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am just sick of how much downright rudeness and cruelty some editors on Wikipedia get away with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:United States 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate your proposal at ANI pertaining to the Lugnuts/John Pack Lambert discussion. It makes a lot of sense! Also, I appreciate your ongoing contributions at AfD, I agree with your positions probably 90% of the time. On those occasions I don't, your position is always within the bounds of reason and common sense. I can't say that about all participants! Jacona (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jacona: Thank you, I appreciate you saying that! BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sant'Agostino, Rome 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Wilhelm Brülle
Thankyou for your nomination of Wilhelm Brülle for proposed deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm sorry about the ANI discussion, and the possible spill over to ArbCom; if the discussion was on just you, rather than merged with Lugnuts, I think it would have gone differently, as it would have allowed editors to better understand the perceived issues or lack thereof. BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I really think the way people allow people to keep expanding the scope of ANI, instead of focusing only on current issues is very frustrating. Someone literally brought up that I had my account blocked back in 2015. Things like that show that some editors do not seem to want to accept that others can grow and learn from mistakes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- If it was not for the ANI and how people seem to use my saying anything against Lugnuts as grounds to try to punish me, I might bring up what happened with the article on Frans Kuijper somewhere. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raúl Antoli multiple editors said I should have just been bold to redirect the article. This shows what actually happens when at least I try to boldly redirect the article. I wish there was an easier way to show people why advising unilateral redirecting is not a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
István Kultsár
I just found these links on Google books. I am not sure if this is the person mentioned with connection with laws during WWII. https://www.google.com/search?q=Istv%C3%A1n+Kults%C3%A1r&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALiCzsYJKxrWXJhAy-JtI5f2NgwL9amdbg%3A1654789247396&ei=fxSiYqfsF4aMtQa7nL64Dw&ved=0ahUKEwjnp5Oq2qD4AhUGRs0KHTuOD_cQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=Istv%C3%A1n+Kults%C3%A1r&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzEANQpgVY9RZgmh9oAXAAeAKAAXCIAfYJkgEDNS44mAEAoAEBoAECsAEAwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-books
I am thinking that the person involved with the adminstration of law in Hungary is a different person. However he could have been a runner eliminated before the final in 1924, and a government official by the 1950s. There are either way clearly multiple people with this name (there appears to be a writer with this name from the 15th-century), so I see no reason to say this is even likely to be the right person to make searches go to for István Kultsár. I believe the nature of Hungarian names means they get written in both orders in English at times. Someone needs to dig to make 100% sure that the Olympian is not the later government official. Although if we cannot say definitively either way, this is probably a sign the person was not really notable in either position and so we should have no article, and say nothing. This will take some digging in sources before it can be said for sure either way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- They were different people - this book mentions the war criminal being alive in 1944, while the Olympian died in 1943. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Pierre Coquelin de Lisle
Looking at the state of our article on Pierre Coquelin de Lisle I am not seeing on what grounds we developed the rule that even Olympic medalists are default notable. Now maybe there are other sources out there that give more coverage, but the fact that Olympedia does not have any prose on this individual is not giving me confidence that the idea that every person who won a medal at the Olympics is likely to have coverage enough to justify an article is actually in line with reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect that he'll end up being notable - winning gold in an individual event, even that far back, is likely to result in WP:SIGCOV - but we do need to change the WP:NOLYMPICS to address team events, particularly the early gymnastics events where some teams had more than forty members. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wait, they gave gold to a whole team of 40+ members in gymnastics? That is just crazy. It will take years to right side the number of Olympic articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics. Other years had large numbers of competitors, but none as many as that year. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wait, they gave gold to a whole team of 40+ members in gymnastics? That is just crazy. It will take years to right side the number of Olympic articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- So today, I think for the first time since Monday of last week, I nominated an article created by Lugnuts for deletion. He has posted at an ANI (a second one opened against me because among other things I did not find any sourcing on Frans Kuijper, because he went by Frans Kuyper) that I am "harassing" him by doing another nomination for deletion of an article he created. He clearly does not get why the ANI was actually opened against him, nor does he seem to be backing down from attacking others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
That AfD has been killing me, I'm so glad you and Avilich finally saw it. Like, people really think a press release on the results of an anonymous twitter poll establishes GNG?! Or that winning that poll qualifies for ANYBIO??!! JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to help!
- ANYBIO is so vague that I wouldn't be surprised if editors argued that a finishers medal for the Boston Marathon is a
well-known and significant award
- I exaggerate, but only a little. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)- In other news, the idea that "national recognition" is an equally prestigious distinction for all nations, plus scattered (agrammatical!) positive commentary from one reporter at one newspaper, is apparently enough for a slam-dunk GNG case... Looks like we'll be needing articles on every minor NAIA conference first-team member too. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Or that a tabloid naming someone "Danish Sportsperson of the Year" is a
well-known and significant award
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aage Leidersdorff. Almost worse was the suggestion that we should wait until 2045 to determine whether this person is notable, as it is too inconvenient to search for coverage of him until news articles from 1945 are available online. BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- Ugh that argument comes up at lots of Danish athlete AfDs, it's utterly ridiculous. Source existence should be falsifiable! And ANYBIO is abused so much as to be worthless -- its logical extension permits having a whole article on someone for a subjective achievement even if the only RS that could ever exist just verifies receipt of an award. And if such an article would actually be considered unacceptable, then what possible purpose could ANYBIO #1 serve that wouldn't be improved by making it presumptive of GNG?
- Anyway, I've added that AfD to my ":( sports closes" bookmarks folder, ha. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- And of course it's totally reasonable to close a 5k 3d/r discussion as keep without any closing statement and despite not a single piece of SIGCOV being found... JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Or that a tabloid naming someone "Danish Sportsperson of the Year" is a
- In other news, the idea that "national recognition" is an equally prestigious distinction for all nations, plus scattered (agrammatical!) positive commentary from one reporter at one newspaper, is apparently enough for a slam-dunk GNG case... Looks like we'll be needing articles on every minor NAIA conference first-team member too. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Question
So I see this is what is listed as the scope of an interaction ban. Is there anything in here that would actually make it so someone banned from interacting with another editor could not nominate an article they created for deletion? Interaction ban Shortcut WP:IBAN The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.
Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
edit each other's user and user talk pages; reply to each other in discussions; make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly; undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means; use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits. A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.
Interaction bans are listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.
I am really trying to see if there is something here I am missing?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, in theory, someone could add features to an interaction ban. I do not see where that adding of features has actually been proposed though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now someone has proposed expanding the interaction ban to limit me so I could never nominat any article Lugnuts ever created for deletion. The way I get treated is quite discouraging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe any of the proposed remedies at ANI will go through, and it appears that ARBCOM declined to issue the preliminary injunction that they were considering that would include an IBAN. As such, I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of clarity in those proposals.
- If ARBCOM does consider an IBAN, I suspect they will address those concerns, and if they don't it would be appropriate to ask that question under the proposed decision. In general, giving anyone an IBAN related to all articles that Lugnuts has edited would be unreasonable, and I don't believe there is any chance that ARBCOM will pass such a remedy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now someone has proposed expanding the interaction ban to limit me so I could never nominat any article Lugnuts ever created for deletion. The way I get treated is quite discouraging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, in theory, someone could add features to an interaction ban. I do not see where that adding of features has actually been proposed though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
So they have now opened the Arbcom discussion. I have never dealt with this before. I have read over the guidelines. I will think about what to write. This is all new to me. I am not even sure if it is in my best interest to present any evidence. Do you have any thoughrs? John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: For now, I would suggest not saying anything, either on the evidence page or its talk page; you have three weeks to present evidence, so there is no rush. Some editors will present evidence that you will want to immediately try to rebut or address, but it would be best to wait. Often, after waiting you will find that a reply is not needed; either the evidence is too weak to need one, or other editors have already responded to it for you. For the rest, a reply may be needed, but an immediate reply is not; the arbs will not give extra weight to a faster reply, and a kneejerk reply is likely to be less strong than a carefully considered reply.
- I would also suggest avoiding further comment at WP:ANI; with the ARBCOM case open that discussion is very unlikely to resolve anything, or impose any sanctions on either you or Lugnuts.
- Unfortunately, I don't have much time right now, but I'll give you a more detailed response tomorrow or the day after. BilledMammal (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: On a previous case, Guy Macon made the following comment; I believe you may find it helpful.
ARBCOM has the following easily-observable properties:
- It is slow. Questions and accusations lay there unanswered for long periods of time as the arbs and clerks work behind the scenes. As you have seen, non-arbs try to help by giving you non-authoritative answers, but these are just opinions and educated guesses.
- It is designed to not allow most kinds of "drama". Unlike ANI, clerks enforce rules and remove comments as needed.
- Evidence is everything, opinions are usually ignored.
- It is usually far better to not defend yourself and instead sit back and watch as someone uninvolved refutes any unfair accusations. Which never happens as fast as you think it should.
- Correcting factual errors with diffs is almost always worthwhile, but the optimal strategy is to lose all humanity and act as if an unemotional robot is posting the correction.
- Reading through past arbcom cases is very helpful. Pick one and read only the preliminary comments. Then see how things evolved in the evidence phase. Then read how the decision is slowly hammered out in the workshop phase. Then and only then read the final results.
- He also recommended a few related cases to read, but those cases are not relevant here. The closest case here might be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals, and if you have not previously read through an ARBCOM case I would recommend reading through that one in the manner described by Guy Macon.
- The other benefit of waiting before making a statement is that it will clarify what case is being made against you; currently, I don't see a clear direction that it will take.
- I would also suggest not making statements about other parties; it is likely to result in a "tit-for-tat" that won't help either of you. Instead, leave those statements for others to make. As for statements about yourself, feel free to run them by me or another sympathetic editor before you post them; if you want to run them by me, pinging me, posting it here, or emailing it to me will get my attention. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou for your advice. I am finding it very helpful. I am probably not even going to sign onto my account on a computer until tomorrow. Signing on on a phone seems to make it harder to do some things I normally do. I really want to just get back to reviewing 1898 births for the time being. So I probably will do that and ignore adding nee AfD. I may review pending AfD, but I am not sure. I won't have that much time tomorrow to edit either. I am trying to get myself to ignore some of this completely. We will see where this goes. 1898 still has lots of unsourced and undersourced articles, but it also has another set of articles where 2022 political and name designations of places is used where it was different in 1898. So that is another set of edits I do. I think I will review that case before doing anything else with regards to Arbcom. I notice at ANI that on the general idea that nominating articles for deletion is a form of harassment per se, there is little support. It seems the less I say the more people realize the use of the term "harassment" is unjustified. This whole process though is frustrating, and I see little indication it's outcome will be good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is a good idea; I don't know how ArbCom will go, but whatever the result I don't believe the accusations of harassment or hounding will have any weight in it. BilledMammal (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Depp v. Heard 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefly: I think the second notification is because I offered two statements, one for each of the two proposed cases; one and two. BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom notice
An editor has submitted one or more edits that were made by you or relate to you as evidence in an ongoing arbitration case. Please note that the editor is not requesting that the Committee add you to the case as a party. You may review the evidence submission here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy summer/winter
Sunshine! | ||
Hello BilledMammal! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Interstellarity: Thank you! Winter over here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Technical edits
Kia ora BilledMammal - I can't help but notice that you've engaged on my technical request almost immediately after I posted it. This isn't the first time that such a course of events has happened, and it always seems to be instances where you're opposing that the correct process is followed. This feels like it's a personal move, and I'd ask that you stop this repeated following of my proposals. Turnagra (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing personal; the project page has been on my watchlist for a while, and in this case we disagree what the correct process is here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which aspect of the WP:BRD cycle am I missing here? The user made a bold move which I disagree with, I'm requesting the revert as I'm unable to do it myself, in order for it to be discussed per the process. Turnagra (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Disagreement over which version is stable. Unfortunately, there is no consensus to point to; I generally believe that anything over two years is stable and anything under one month is not, while anything between that depends on a lot of different factors, including how prominent the page is, how many watchers the page has, how many edits the page has had, how many significant edits the page has had, and whether the edit was raised on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Given that there were no concerns raised with the original move and every move since has been highly controversial, I think that speaks to the dual name being the stable version.
- At any rate, that still doesn't address the underlying issue that any action I take in this space often has you trying to revert it within a very short space of time, which I can't help but see as a pattern. Turnagra (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what issue you are seeing; can you be more specific? BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a trend that you are often engaging in move requests I initiate very soon after they get underway, including in this recent example (though not strictly a move request). It definitely feels as though you have been targeting my moves by virtue of who is posting them. Turnagra (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I respond to move requests based on what they propose, not who proposed them. When Spekkios opened a request that proposed moving an article from its dual name to its common name, I responded very soon after it got underway. When you opened a move request that proposed moving a song to a different disambiguation I didn't notice. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a trend that you are often engaging in move requests I initiate very soon after they get underway, including in this recent example (though not strictly a move request). It definitely feels as though you have been targeting my moves by virtue of who is posting them. Turnagra (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what issue you are seeing; can you be more specific? BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Disagreement over which version is stable. Unfortunately, there is no consensus to point to; I generally believe that anything over two years is stable and anything under one month is not, while anything between that depends on a lot of different factors, including how prominent the page is, how many watchers the page has, how many edits the page has had, how many significant edits the page has had, and whether the edit was raised on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which aspect of the WP:BRD cycle am I missing here? The user made a bold move which I disagree with, I'm requesting the revert as I'm unable to do it myself, in order for it to be discussed per the process. Turnagra (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Sarah Forbes AfD
Howdy - We've both voted Keep, seemingly on the correct policy grounds. Are you a regular participant at AfD? I'm not there very often, so I was surprised to see so many delete voters on what I thought was a pretty clear-cut discussion (excluding the dubious nomination timeline). Is that a common thing there? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 07:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ThadeusOfNazereth: I am; editors voting against broader consensus is quite common, and though it resulting in the article being kept against broader consensus is less common it does happen. The topic of whether those votes are appropriate has actually been raised in a current ARBCOM case. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, that's good to know about ARBCOM - I've been trying to avoid the drama boards but I'll have to check that out. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Double group 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:1948 Modus Vivendi
Hello, BilledMammal. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1948 Modus Vivendi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)