User talk:BilledMammal

Sometimes this user has the attention span of a squirrel. If you were expecting a reply or follow-up to something and this user never provided one, you are invited to ping them or leave a message on their talk page reminding them to do so.

Fabric designer

for all occassions your choice and you seasoned 2601:19B:4800:6360:8D8D:EA7E:50EB:3265 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coming into the 20th century

I once suggested to Cordless Larry that he consider getting more modern by changing his name to Bluetooth Larry or Cellular Larry, or even just WiFi-Enabled Larry. Similarly, instead of Billed Mammal, maybe you could be Paypal Mammal or Automated Clearing House Mammal or Monthly Recurring Charge Mammal. Just a thought? E Eng 23:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed, twice. When I read the comment the first time, and again when I came back to reply.

Thank you for the suggestion, I will take it under serious consideration. I am genuinely tempted to change my name to "Automated Clearing House Mammal". BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With Automated Clearinghouse Mammal you can certainly be confident of no pesky name conflicts with editors on other wikis. E Eng 00:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or anywhere else on the internet. You may have just managed to organize those words in a way that has never been done before. BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking outside the box. Way outside. E Eng 01:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a kibbitz, but I for one would find "House Clearing Automated Mammal" more evocative. :p Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I'm awarding you the EEng Grand Iron Cross of Excellence in Permutated Diction, with Platinum Edging, Laurel Leaves, and Teensy Weensy Sapphire Chips. E Eng 01:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Just a quibble, but a hyphen is needed: House-Clearing. You can thank me later.[reply]

There are too many good ideas here. I might have to start messing with my signature.

Although "House Clearing Automated Mammal" does suggest I am more tidy than I actually am. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was imagining a robot skunk that causes unwanted houseguests to flee. E Eng 01:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about ATM Mammal? That would mean everyone who addresses you is really saying "Automated Teller Mammal Mammal", like we do with ATM machine? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ATM! ATM! It's me, Dorothy! E Eng 09:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Long overdue. Thank-you for your various (usually RfC-oriented) efforts to make Wikipedia a different – but better – place. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is nice to hear that. BilledMammal (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baby article

Your are a baby. Have a good day 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:D5BB:8AE4:BE20:DE13 (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for heroic coordination of amazingly productive on-wiki community conversations about the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BilledMammal (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike 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 12:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Otzma Yehudit 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, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting close of Talk:Saikū Palace#Requested_move_24_October_2023

Hi BilledMammal,

You closed the RM as moved without leaving any explanation despite there was clear objection from Ka-ru and clear canvassing from the nominator before relisting. From a further discussion in the related RM Talk:Saiō#Requested_move_24_October_2023 stated, this move may not be appropriate. There wasn't clear argument about how Saikū Palace can't be the primary topic of title Saikū while Saiō is actually as Saigū in the nomination rationale. Thus, WP:SMALLDETAILS may apply for Saikū Palace to hold the distinct topic at Saikū and leave Saigū for the title to disambiguate. Besides, from Ka-ru's argument in Talk:Saiō, the title of natural disambiguator "Saikū Palace" is actually erroneous. As a page mover as well, I think you should revert this move and reopen this RM for further discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given minimal participation I've relisted. I'm not convinced there was canvassing to that RM, but regardless I see no reason it won't benefit from further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your relisting. I was referring to nominator's canvassing of the related RM Talk:Saiō#Requested_move_24_October_2023 on that page, which is still inappropriate and may raise a systematic issue. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of places

Pinging Reywas92, Mangoe. I've come across a few lists like List of places in Arizona (A) and List of places in Colorado: A–F which seem to be generated from GNIS, totally unsourced and often full of deleted articles that were delinked but never removed. Should cleaning these up be the next chapter in the GNIS saga? –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a cleanup would be a good idea, but I think it will be an uphill battle to do so; people tend to point at GEOLAND even when there are no suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny about that, I just mentioned List of places in Idaho: A–K on @FOARP:'s talk page. It looks to have been generated from GNIS, but the redlinks don't appea to be for deleted articles. I see no hope of getting it deleted. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I see that most edits on the list are people removing deleted articles. It is very, very old, created in 2006. Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up a lot of deleted articles from the Arizona lists and a few obvious rail sidings from Colorado. Since many states have similar lists, I wonder if it makes sense to clean these up systematically and develop consistent standards for inclusion. It would probably be uncontroversial to reduce them to bluelinked articles which would cut down on a lot of the GNIS spam.

It's also a good reminder to go back and remove deleted articles from lists etc sicne this often isn't done by the AfD closer. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Move

Hi @BilledMammal, I hope you are doing fine. I am here after I noticed a mistake on Talk:P. Gannavaram Assembly Constituency#Requested move 26 August 2023. Although you have closed the discussion saying that the move was performed you haven't moved the article to the original name that has been requested. Kindly move it. Thank you 456legend(talk) 02:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal, I saw this editor's question at the Teahouse and I'm following up. I see you've been editing since this was posted so I assume you saw it. Is there a reason you closed the discussion as "moved" but then didn't move the page? If there's a technical issue I can assist. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only issue is with me; I thought I moved it at the time, I saw this message and thought I moved it after, but in both cases I was mistaken. I’ll get to it tonight. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry all for the delay. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter 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 18:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent move requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you please clarify why you've moved ~~one~~ two pages unilaterally and launched a further three dual name move requests as soon as I've proposed changes to the New Zealand naming conventions, after months of not so much as touching a New Zealand-related article for months? I repeatedly try to assume good faith but this feels directly related. Turnagra (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your change reminded me of the topic; I've avoided articles whose preferred title would be impacted by your change. BilledMammal (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to go on such a large campaign though, especially when things had been perfectly fine without any such move requests either way for months. Turnagra (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this a large campaign; for comparison, the number of RM's I've opened - four - is far less than numbers we've seen in the past without objection, such as on 15 September 2021 when another editor opened at least fourteen:

With that said, I don't think I'm going to open many more today; I'm aiming at the low hanging fruit where usage is so lopsided that the COMMONNAME should be obvious. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was in a period of already high activity, rather than after months of inactivity (which in itself was brought on by the burnout of a lot of people caused by the moves.) Frankly I wish that you stayed forgetful of them, as it's always the exact same discussion regardless of the topic and I don't have the time or the energy to counter the exact same points over and over constantly. Your insistence on using the same arguments which have been repeatedly disproven shows I'd have better luck yelling at a wall. Turnagra (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on using the same arguments which have been repeatedly disproven shows I'd have better luck yelling at a wall

In these RM's I make three arguments; that the proposed title is preferred by reliable sources, that the proposed title is more concise, and that the proposed title better aligns with MOS:SLASH.

The latter two are self-evident - while MOS:SLASH has minimal bearing, if two titles are otherwise equally preferred then my belief is that MOS:SLASH can be useful in deciding which one we should use - while the former is always accompanied by significant evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to revisit this topic again. You continue to be trying to right the great wrong of dual name usage instead of actually doing something productive with your time - could you please explain why you feel so aggrieved by the presence of such names? Turnagra (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what your complaint is; even if you believe I am wasting my time ensuring that these articles are at their policy-compliant title (and given how much time you spent moving articles to their dual names prior to WP:NZNC being modified, I would be surprised if you did) that shouldn't bother you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're wasting everybody else's time having to respond to your nonsense. The current titles are clearly policy compliant, but for whatever reason - whether it's because of the indigenous name, as with moves in Australia and South Africa, or whether it's just being confused by punctuation, some people don't seem to understand that. As for my moves, these were often accompanied by actual improvements to the articles and done one-at-a-time with large breaks to give people time to object, rather than a fly-by-night bombardment which overwhelms people and means they're unable to respond. Turnagra (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still surprised to hear you object to my move requests with terms like "fly-by-night bombardment", given you had no objection to behavior at a greater scale in the opposite direction, like in the 14 move requests I linked above.

Regardless, you may believe that titles like Tītī / Muttonbird Islands are policy compliant, but consensus shows otherwise - of the recent move requests, both of the ones that have been closed have resulted in moves (it would be three, but you objected to one of the closes). BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they had continued to open more requests despite people repeatedly expressing concerns then I would have had an issue with that, yes. There is also a difference between someone unfamiliar with the area and someone who is well versed in the history waging a long campaign which seemingly won't stop until they've either gotten rid of every dual name on wikipedia or found some other corner of wikipedia to lawyer into oblivion.

As for the consensus, are you referring to the same four accounts which follow each move request and don't engage on the topic beyond slashes being bad? Turnagra (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the person repeatedly expressing concerns regarding my proposals is you, it seems odd to say that you would have had an issue with the proposals in the opposite direction if only someone had repeatedly expressed concerns.

We're not going to agree here; you believe my proposals are wrong, but since the broader community generally believes otherwise there is no issue with me continuing to open them and I'm not interested in discussing this further. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page move Early European modern humans → Cro-Magnon

Hi BilledMammal! I am considering a move review following your recent close of the above move discussion, but want you to have a look at my findings first before I proceed.

I admit that the misunderstandings about how Ngram syntax works devalidated a lot of the line of reasoning in my commnents. But one thing still remains valid and needs to be considered when evaluating metrics about the occurrence of "Cro-Magnon" in published texts: "Cro-Magnon" can either generically refer to (European) early modern humans, or it can specifically refer to the site of "Cro-Magnon" and the indivduals excavated there.

I have taken a look at the 7870 occurrences in Google Scholar since 2013 ("Cro-Magnon"&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013&as_yhi=) As a quick sample, I took the first 20 search results and looked up for what "Cro-Magnon" refers to in these publications. In 14 of them, "Cro-Magnon" specifically refers to the "Cro-Magnon" site and the indivduals excavated there. 5 of them use the term in the wider sense, although one author explicitly writes in 2015:[1] "I also apologize to anyone who objects to my use of "Cro-Magnon" in the title. I realize that the term is both outdated and inaccurate, but I needed its alliterative effect..." (emphasis added). And there is one source that uses the term in a metaphorical way, but clearly the metaphor relates to the wider sense.

So it's 70% sensu stricto and 30% sensu lato. Obviously, this is a very small sample and things might change a bit in either direction if more search hits are evaluated. But it becomes clear that while "Cro-Magnon" might be a more recognizable term than "European early modern humans" for the topic of the article (hits for "European early modern humans" are indeed deplorable low), it is not the primary topic related to the title "Cro-Magnon", apart from not being precise (unlike "European early modern humans"). In the majority of sources, "Cro-Magnon" refers to the rock shelter and the people excavated at this very place. WP:PRECISION matters too besides plain metrics. Austronesier (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think on your comments and reply in the next few days; sorry for the delay. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please take your time! I failed to comment on @Chhandama's very relevant contribution to the discussion for almost two weeks, so I'd be last one to rush :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, but I don't think they justify overturning the result; as I understand it you are not making the argument that "Cro-Magnon" isn't the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, but that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name.

Given that this move was centered on what the common name was, and that the status quo is that this is the primary topic (the redirect from Cro-Magnon to Early European modern humans had existed for almost five years), I don't think that an objection raised after the close that this isn't the primary topic is sufficient to overturn - although opening a new move request on that basis to a disambiguated form of Cro-Magnon, WP:NATURAL or otherwise, could be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello there, I didn't see that there is a freeze on moves until 1 December. Thank you for closing it. Can I open it again on the 1st? Or only on the 2nd? Thank you in advance Homerethegreat (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the 1st, however I suspect the move will be rejected; a similar one was considered in the past but rejected as while the format deviates from our style guideline it matches the format in reliable sources. 22:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Henry Kissinger

On 30 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Henry Kissinger, which you helped to improve. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. starship .paint (RUN) 06:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 08:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Palestinian exodus from Kuwait (1990–91) 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 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello BilledMammal, we need experienced volunteers.

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks

The article Taba and Nuweiba drone attacks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page contents already covered in the article: Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abo Yemen ✉ 13:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello BilledMammal, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert: Thank you, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! Sorry, I only noticed this now! BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ygm

Hello BM, just wanted to note I sent you an email. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, replied. BilledMammal (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Pākehā settlers

European settlers of New Zealand seems to me more apt than European settlers in New Zealand, and on checking I see that most subcats and subsubcats of Category:Settlers use "of". Did you consider European settlers of New Zealand, but decided you preferred European settlers in New Zealand, or did you just not consider it? If the latter, what do you think of it now that I have suggested it to you? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider it, but you make a good point; it both makes more sense, and it is more consistent with other titles, particularly the category Category:Settlers of New Zealand. I would support it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blugdeon

You need to read WP:BLUDGEON, you do not have to ask every user you disagree with to explain why, that is the job of any closer. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think replying to two editors, one who directly addressed my !vote and the other who made a clear factual misunderstanding is bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on our earlier talks on Ukrainian hromada mass creation

Hey BilledMammal, it's been a while but hope you're doing great! :)

As per your suggestions back a few months ago regarding my Ukrainian hromada stubs, I've searched around and have made a bit of progress on sourcing for hromada articles. While earlier I relied solely on the Ukrainian government's decentralization website for info on the hromadas (which verifies all the content on the articles I've made), I found a great secondary source that includes all of the hromadas and speaks to their notability. The article, which is in Russian, comes from a reputable NGO in Ukraine called Hromadske and is fairly comprehensive imo. While it doesn't directly substantiate specific information on individual hromadas (like which settlements are within each hromada) it does verify the existence of this and other hromadas (within the article's provided maps, albeit in Ukrainian) and goes into detail explaining the 2020 admin. reform and the significance/importance/roles of the newly created hromadas (in Russian). I think this, together with the earlier, weaker secondary source I found (which only verifies the existence of the hromadas and their administrative borders), should pass WP:GNG for now but I want to know your thoughts on the above before I begin any mass-creation of the rest of the missing hromada articles with this new source included.

I know two secondary sources is the bare minimum for GNG though so I understand if there's concerns about it but I'm still very confident there's more secondary sources out there somewhere. A good example of that I think is Sofiivka rural hromada which is not a stub anymore and has a lot of interesting/useful content with additional sources. In case it helps too though, there's other editors who can speak well (probably better than me tbh) to the notability of hromadas and many active contributors in the Ukrainian wikiproject agree to the notability of separate, individual hromada articles. Hopefully my updates above help a bit but let me if you think it'll be alright to resume mass-creating the hromada articles (and if you have any advice about it). Sorry for the bother and thanks for all the help back earlier and now too (btw no worries if you don't have any advice, just thought I'd reach out in case yk). Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on...

This is beneath you. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I shouldn’t have, but that plane is becoming increasingly silly. Boeing used to be a byword for excellence, but they’ve gone from having engineers in charge to accountants and MBA’s, and as a partial consequence are accepting greater risks than they would in the past.

That does work for some industries where they can accept a certain rate of product failure, but that isn’t true in aerospace. BilledMammal (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LUGSTUBS 3

Hi BilledMammal – I want to give you a long-overdue note of appreciation for starting what would become the LUGSTUBS discussion, same with your role in LUGSTUBS 2. I would like to know if you would be open to me using this Quarry query on unreferenced Lugstubs to start what I hope will become LUGSTUBS 3. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@InvadingInvader: Sorry, I’ve been trying to find some time to review my list before replying to this. If I remember my past thoughts correctly, we need a tool stronger than that query and quarry for a complete draftification process; a bot that actually reviews each article.

It’s not only that the query will have a number of false positives - it’s sufficiently conservative that there shouldn’t be too many, although given the scale perhaps enough to scupper it. The bigger issue is that it will have a lot of false negatives.

I would actually agree with withdrawing it for now, sorry. BilledMammal (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, you may remember that I few months back I proposed a sports article cleanup contest. I still hope to run it at some point. If I remember right one of the reasons I hadn't started it up was that I was missing a few stub lists - I think it was non-Lugnuts created sports stubs without sigcov that I was missing and stub lists by nationality. Would you be willing, when you have the time, to make me these lists and maybe at the start of next month the sports stub contest could run, (if we can get a few other things to work out)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: What lists were we missing? I'll try to get to them when I have the chance. BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page, it seems we need ones by sport (we have ones for Lugstubs by sport, but need other ones that include non-Lugnuts creations - it can include both (Lugstubs and non-Lugnuts stubs) or it can be a just non-Lugnuts category, whichever one is easiest for you to do) and ones for athletes by nationality. A category for women might be helpful as well, as I know there's some editors from WP:WIR who may be interested in this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VP pump (policy) RFC

Hello. That's twice you've moved the 'Forum issue' subsection, in the RFC-in-question. Now 'two' editors have reversed you. Will you please stop 'moving' it. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of action at administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stubs

Sorry, I meant to start working on these over Christmas. Can you link me to the list again, and I'll start working on the German-speaking ones. Red Fiona (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore, I've found them again. I watchlisted them, it just doesn't show on mobile. Red Fiona (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've totally forgotten what this is about and now I'm curious; can you remind me? BilledMammal (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The early Olympian stubs, I figured since I was so gung ho about keeping them, I ought to do some work. Red Fiona (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

contentious topics

Sorry, you have possibly already seen this by now? but just to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

The following is from {{alert/first}}
To add this to somebody else's talk page use:

{{subst:alert/first|a-i}} ~~~~

But it won't add that bit above, I wrote that myself because when I first saw this notice it really confused me.

I've been procrastinating about sending this because it sternly warns me not to give you two first notices but it also sternly warns me to use the first alert template for first notices. I couldn't see any other notices on your page, you didn't seem to have an archive, and digging any deeper seemed invasive?

But being double alert seems better than not at all? sorry if I got it wrong?

Irtapil (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Irtapil (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already received this notice; you should check filter logs and look for filter 602 before posting them, to verify that the editor has not previously received them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the tip, but can you explain filter 602? Irtapil (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at the filter log (which can be accessed through the page history) it will tell you which filter triggered the log. 602 is the filter for these alerts; before issuing such an alert you should check through those to see if an editor has previously been alerted. BilledMammal (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Although there was no consensus that your editing was disruptive or sanctions were necessary there were some legitimate concerns about your interaction style. I suggest that you step back from discussions when you find yourself going in circles, start RFCs when consensus is elusive in long discussions, and limit yourself to around four indented replies.

no

one

was

ever

convinced

after

this

many

indents

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a bad habit of feeling that I need to reply to (almost) every reply made to my own replies, so I will try to keep that in check - limiting myself to four indented replies does sound like a good rule of thumb to help with that, thank you.

I'll also be more proactive about opening RfC's when consensus is elusive; I generally prefer to let the editor who the WP:ONUS is on open the RfC so that they can frame it as they see fit, but if they don't do so after a little prodding I'll just go ahead and do it myself. BilledMammal (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Dioceses

Hello! I'm just wondering why you considered the current disambiguation to be 'natural' when closing this move request. So far as I'm aware none of the dioceses involved are called the 'Anglican Diocese of [X]' in reliable sources, so they don't meet the definition given at WP:NATURAL. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad choice of words on my part; it was more in reference to the disambiguation avoiding parenthetical or comma-separated disambiguation than meeting the definition of WP:NATURAL. I'm happy to reword it if you prefer? BilledMammal (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I was just wondering. Truth be told I don't think anyone fully understood the point I was making in the move request, and now it's concluded I'm quite happy to leave it be! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're discussing it I will say that your point was well reasoned - that the current naming suggests that non-Anglican dioceses also existed in Manchester etc - but in the end it wasn't convincing to the editors who participated in that RM. BilledMammal (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. Sometimes the consensus doesn't go your way, that's just the nature of Wikipedia! Cheers for giving your reasoning, too. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am looking for a second opinion on a user we both have encountered, could you (as a more experienced person editor who already interacted with them) take a quick look whether their actions have reached the point of warranting more substantive actions being taken?

There were some incidents with NadVolum where I am not sure if it is “just” a list of coincidences or a case of WP:Nothere.

Their talk page has a plethora of warnings and other incidents, they argued that NGO Monitor was unreliable (01:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)) (a per se not invalid position) and then attempted to use them on the AfD for EMHRM (18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)) and there were some other questionable statements strewn about that were at best off-topic and at worst indicative of bias (ex. 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)).

Should I warn them, reach out to an administrator, use ANI, do nothing, or do something else? Could you take a look? I totally understand if you can’t or don’t want to :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sequence of edits, in regards to NGO Monitor is highly problematic:

13:31, 21 January 2024 - At WP:RSN, says I see no reason to use them, and suggests they peddle in conspiracy theories
18:23, 21 January 2024 - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination), suggests it is suitable to contribute to notability
23:45, 22 January 2024 - At WP:RSN, !votes to deprecate the source

I haven't interacted with them much, and taking a glance at their contributions I'm not seeing anything else on that level, although I was concerned by 22:51, 20 January 2024, where they were very dismissive of concerns about using "jew" and compared it to using "american" and "christian" - failing to recognize that using Jew as a verb is a pejorative, and the same is not true of American or Christian.

It could just be ignorance, but it is concerning.

I probably wouldn't take it anywhere yet, but I'm probably a little too adverse to going to AE and ANI these days; up to you what you want to do.

Just as a FYI, when it comes to misbehavior in the Israel-Palestine topic area, the correct location to take issues is generally WP:AE, though be warned that they are much stricter there than at ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had the same issues, and am strongly considering using an enforcement mechanism. Could you please elaborate what the warning regarding strictness specifically entails? FortunateSons (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions will also be under scrutiny, and if you are found to have misbehaved or made a blatantly invalid report it is likely that you would be sanctioned, not the editor you are making a report against. That's not to say that will happen here, but it is something to be aware of. BilledMammal (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thank you.

I’m not expecting you to check every edit I have ever made, but are you aware of any case where I have acted in a way that is in violation of policy (ignoring growing pains when still figuring out the basics)? FortunateSons (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anything, and glancing through you contributions nothing stands out - you did earn ECP quickly, but your edits while doing so appear productive. BilledMammal (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to an admin, who directed me towards AE as well. Would you mind taking a look at my request (which is obviously my own and not yours) just to make sure that I did not make any obvious mistakes/didn’t miss anything? FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few edits:

I've switched the dates to a clearer format, to make it easier for admins to review the request
I've switched from mobile diffs to diffs; for mobile users they'll turn into mobile diffs anyway, and will make it easier for editors on computers to review
I've switched the awareness notification to the standard format
I've removed the suggestions about what action to take; better, in my opinion, to leave that entirely up to the admins
I've switched the focus from the use of "jew" to their response to the concerns; I see the initial use as nothing serious so long as it isn't established that they are doing it deliberately, but their response to expressed concerns is more concerning.

Please ignore and revert any of these that you disagree with. With that said, I'm not sure that going to AE is right at this time. Looking through this again, my interpretation is that the first, as an isolated incident, doesn't warrant action. The second is problematic even in isolation, but doesn't go so far as to justify action by itself in my opinion, although it would likely result in harsher sanctions if presented with something actionable.

Instead, I would recommend sitting back and seeing how they behave, and if there are further issues then bringing the whole lot to AE. BilledMammal (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good changes, thank you.

I trust your recommendation and will sit back for now, I appreciate your assistance. Do you mind if I reach out to you if they do something actionable again? FortunateSons (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; always happy to help. BilledMammal (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate you taking the time for me, particularly as I am new-ish :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

==Name==

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Name

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FortunateSons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

WP:NOTHERE violations:

21 January 2024, they describe on RSN that NGO Monitor is not a usable source, describing them as “akin to one of those think tanks employed to say global warming isn't happening and it is too late to do anythng about it and it is good for agriculture and it is a Chinese plot”.
21 January 2024 suggested that it may be used to establish notability in an AfD about Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor
22 January 2024 voted to depreciate NGO Monitor
24 January 2024 When asked about his motive, he said: “Actually I was interested in seeing what kind of response the people who push for NGO Monitor being counted as a reliable site would make when it is used to support having a site they want to remove!”
24 January 2024 he also said “Well actully [sic] I wouldn't consider NGO Monitor as a reliable source for anything.”

Other issue:

19 January 2024 referred to Mondoweiss as “I think it is quite interesting how Mondoweiss is actually run by jews as far as I know.”
When the issues of using "jew" in lowercase was raised, was very dismissive:
20 January 2024 compared using "jew" to using "american or a christian", not recognizing - or dismissing - that Jew, when used as a verb, is a pejorative.

This is my first AE request, so I apologise in advance for any errors made.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions, but warnings on the talk page

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

===Discussion concerning Name===

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Name

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Name

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

FortunateSons (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion concerns the discussions following your close at Talk:Lucy Letby and whether they necessitate re-opening the RFC, opening another, or something else. NebY (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hobby Magazine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hobby Magazine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § Hobby Magazine until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on UNRWA

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page UNRWA, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, BilledMammal. Thank you for your work on Marlin Luanda missile strike. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thank you reviewing it, and I hope you have a blessed day too! BilledMammal (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal standards of Canada RM

Hi BilledMammal, as you didn't give a reason for you 'no move' decision at Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Requested move 22 January 2024 do you mind me asking what it was? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope: I've updated my closing statement. Happy to discuss further if you have further questions. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, your decision seems to focus on numbers rather than the substance and relative weight of the arguments. My main issue is that nobody really answered the question of why we shouldn't follow the wording used in the article's main sources. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been open for a week; I'll relist it and see if other editors have thoughts. BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind that might be good, although whether or not anyone else contributes is another question! Also, I know it's tricky and somewhat thankless to close discussions (especially when people complain), so thank you for taking the time to do it. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States Capitol Rotunda close

Hello Billed Mammal, and have come to ask that you either reopen this move or reverse your decision and close it as WP:IAR. I'd asked for a panel close at Talk:United States Capitol rotunda#Requested move 22 January 2024, mainly because one closer might feel intimidated implementing the Ignore all rules policy. You dismissed this request. You also said that you closed the discussion while deciding it "...as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". Please note that no page argument made use of policy except for the IAR policy - all others were mixes of guidelines and essays. But nonetheless you closed the discussion by "Assessing the discussion through this lens...". There was no policy lens present in the discussion except for IAR (first time I think I've used underline on Wikipedia, but this merits it - your reason for closing was literally incorrect). Then, importantly, you claimed that to ignore the rules "editors need to convince a significant majority of editors that this is an exceptional case and warrants an exception". Where did this reasoning come from? This is a commonsense case that, given that uppercasing is used as the official name of the space by the United States Capitol, warrants an exception. I made this case within the discussion, but the only editors it really had to convince were the members of the requested panel of three experienced closers, not editors participating in the discussion. Since you incorrectly said that policy guided your close (when it was actually a mix of guidelines and essays) please reopen the discussion, or reverse your close, or step aside from it and join the request to have a panel of experienced editors take on the task of deciding if this is an WP:IAR policy candidate. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, that language comes from WP:DETCON; it is shorthand for as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia core policies, policies, guidelines, and the manual of style.

Regarding editors need to convince a significant majority of editors that this is an exceptional case and warrants an exception. IAR isn't there to allow editors, or even groups of editors, to unilaterally override established consensus. It is there to allow us to apply good sense and judgement to circumstances where, in the view of the broader community, following the letter of the rule will impede improving the encyclopedia. As a rule of thumb if you can answer "yes" to the question "Absent concerns of policy creep concerns, would the broader community agree to make this an explicit exception in policy?", then IAR can apply.

To allow it apply more broadly would result in local consensus commonly overriding broader consensus, and would encourage editors to simply ignore consensus they disagree with.

Even if there had been a slim majority for your position I could not have found for it; I certainly cannot find for it when your position is in the minority.

I'm sorry, but I won't be overturning this close. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring you, I'll get back to this at some point soon, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large removal on List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war

Hey BilledMammal. I noticed you removed over 48,000 bytes from the article. I know you wrote out a long edit summary, but could you maybe explain exactly why you removed each item on the talk page? Some of this comes from the obvious edit-war which occurred on the page. So, a detailed list of what was removed and why it was removed would be helpful. Plus, you did revert an edit I made, which you thanked me for (the note on that N/A line). I know this was conducted more as a revert of a now topic-blocked user, however, since edits made by other users were reverted and it was such a large edit, affecting a lot of the page, a detailed list on the article talk page with reasons for the removal and/or changes would honestly be the best thing to do. I know this is a tedious request, but it will help solve future debates that arise. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

P.S. A small (totally not small) comment: We have crossed paths a couple of times before so if I may, I wanted to let you know about something I noticed. You are probably doing it unintentionally, but you see to have a tendency to do a large revert or several reverts prior to going to the talk page. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I had (have…constantly working to remind myself about it) the habit of doing that as well. More like an edit before thinking mentality is what I had. I am not saying you have that mentality at all. But from my experience, editing (i.e. reverting) before a talk page mention or brief discussion can lead to problems. So, with all that said, one piece of advice I may suggest is you try a brief 0RR-style mentality on CTOP articles, similar to what I do. I am not under any formal restrictions, but I have learned that living to a 0RR mentality keeps a user out of trouble and generally keeps things on the down-low in debates.

A brief example of what I mean using two edits ([2] & [3]) you made on January 19. In the first edit, you removed a column from the article and said the edit summary of “Removed attackers column; see talk page”. Two minutes later (the 2nd edit), you mentioned on the talk page that you removed the columns with the reason why. That is perfectly ok to do. That said, my personal experience and advice would be to tell you to reverse that order. Basically, do the talk page message and then revert or do the larger edit change. If you wanted to hold more to the 0RR restriction, I would recommend doing the talk page message and then waiting at least 24 hours before doing a larger edit. My mentor actually recommended I wait over a week before doing the edit, to give ample time for others to chime in, especially during a debate or disagreement. I’m not saying you should wait a week, but honestly, switching the order of your edits (i.e. talk page first, then large edit) may go a long way to solving problems and disagreements. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go provide a fuller explanation now, and it's not tedious at all; it's a perfectly reasonable request, particularly since my edits involved table and it can be difficult to see what changes have been made when tables are involved.

Regarding the edit you made, I came to the conclusion that we shouldn't be linking internal discussions from the article page, but I'll explain in more depth on the article talk page.

And I'll also keep in mind your suggestions about talking first and then editing - you make good points, although I will say that when the material I want to remove has been recently added I normally prefer to revert to the status quo while the discussion on going on rather than leave the disputed material in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless contributions in contentious topics like A-A and I-P in the name of NPOV, even despite being hauled to ANI and AE over them. Keep it up! JM (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning at Talk:Israel–Hamas war

Hi. I've seen that you made a complaint on the talk page linked in this section's header about bludgeoning in the discussion. I understand the intent, which was to get people to quit bludgeoning the discussion, but the article talk pages generally aren't the best place to bring that up. In the future, rather than posting general notes about bludgeoning that describe but do not name specific editors, would you please reach out to the individual editors on their talk pages first, as WP:RUCD recommends? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid doing so and in the process avoid drama, but it seems to have instead caused drama. I will make sure to reach out directly to users in the future, even if doing so does cause drama. BilledMammal (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

talk page post removed because article ecp protected...

As I understand it you removed my post in the Hamas-israel war crimes article because, presumably you believed the talk page is extended confirmed protected, or that there's some policy that says ecp needed to edit the talk page. As far as I know, this is erroneous. I do not believe you need extended confirmed privileges to edit the talk page. I do not believe there is any restriction placed on that. You may be confused because, I believe, of issues specifically relating to solely that singular talk page the talk page of the Hamas-israel war of 2023 IS extended confirmed protected. So yes, the talk page of that specific article I believe is or was EC protected. The war crimes article though, obviously, is not, and I do not see anything that would restrict it thusly. What leads you to believe that the talk page that wasn't ECP is ECP? Fanccr (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On articles about the Israel-Arab conflict non-ECP editors may only make edit requests on the talk page; as your edit was not an edit request I removed it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on the division of space in the UNRWA Lede

Hi, I wanted to get your thoughts on something which caught my attention: While most of the body of the UNRWA article (by length) covers controversies around UNRWA, controversies is only allotted a short paragraph at the end of the lede. In your opinion, does this raise WP:PROPORTION issues? Thanks. eyal (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review?

Do you want to open one for that baffling close? I've never done it before but will if you're not up to it. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a baffling close; even ignoring that they can't explain what arguments they think were strong in opposition, they've said that the arguments in support were slightly stronger, and that combined with a 15 to 8 majority should result in a clear consensus for a move.

I'll do it if you don't, but probably better you do - I appealed the last close of that proposed move (the one with the interesting close from Sceptre) - and I think an appeal from me will receive less consideration than an appeal from someone else.

I'm happy to help you draft it, if you want. BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd appreciate the help. I've started a draft in my sandbox. JoelleJay (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll reply in a couple of hours. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the actual fuck? JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move of “2021 Oxford High School shooting” to “Oxford High School shooting”.

I requested the move of the article mentioned above a week ago and (as of now) 14 hours ago it was said to be moved by you, however the page is still named “2021 Oxford High School shooting”. Is this normal or is there a problem? MountainDew20 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sure what happened there; it's been moved now. BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close of Talk:Full Faith and Credit Clause#Requested move 21 January 2024

From your closing comments, it appears to me that you have injected yourself into the discussion, making arguments and providing rationale which do not reflect the discussion but can be ascribed to your own opinion and you have thereby become involved. For example, you have effectively discarded evidence provided in discussion regarding both the search of HeinOnline and ngrams. In the former case, there is discussion that would give reasonable grounds to support such a course. However, in the case of ngrams you have provided your own arguments and rational where there is no basis in the discussion that would support the opinion and rationale given. You appear to have judged the issue rather than assessed the strength of the arguments actually made. This has the appearance of being a WP:SUPERVOTE contrary to WP:RMCI and WP:CLOSE. I am also concerned as to why you would only consider the first page of the JSTOR results (25 results) when you have considered 100 results for HeinOnline. Such a different approach could be considered to fall to observer error or bias. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, the close contains a full analysis of the two "sides" and usage. Aside from the case-counts (which is really a factor which should be lessened in these type of attempted casings) Cinderella, you really have to take into account that 1/3 of the Federal government, the Judicial branch (which is the branch of government which works with and quotes the Constitution), uppercases as the common name. In fact, with the careful count summary, the complaint here should be closing the discussion as "no consensus" and not an outright oppose. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see my close of this discussion as crossing into WP:INVOLVED; closers are not required to take participants claims about evidence at face value and are permitted to validate those claims. In addition, they are there to assess the evidence through the lens of Wikipedia policy, which places greater weight on higher quality sources.

HeinOnline has continuous scrolling; there wasn't any easy cut-off point, which is why I ended up going deeper than I did for JSTOR. BilledMammal (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would consider your own comments in respect to the close of an RM you opened and those of another, where there are some striking similarities in what has occurred. Further, when 100 hits from JSTOR are considered (eliminating sources that cannot be viewed, mixed usage and capitalisation in titles where title case is being used), my observation is that we are left with 65 sources and 56% for capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference I see between the two cases is that I reviewed provided evidence and weighted it in accordance with policy; Wbm introduced new evidence. The former is permissible and even encouraged - closers do not need to take claims about evidence on faith - while the latter is not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to review the evidence as offered and that the evidence supports the conclusions claimed in the discussion. It is quite another to conduct an alternative analysis of the evidence offered and to apply one's own criteria not offered in the discussion to reach conclusions, particularly when these are not specifically evident from P&G. In respect to ngrams, you have provided your own, that would group Full Faith and Credit Clause with Full Faith and Credit clause as supporting the present title, when ngram evidence offered in the discussion did not do this. You offered your own opinion (not evidenced in the discussion) for discarding the ngram evidence. There was however, discussion that would give reason to discard the HeinOnline search (as you did), even though you conducted your own detailed review of the result. Such a detailed analysis was not offered in the discussion. This goes beyond the source evidence as offered and what conclusions/assertions were made in respect to that evidence. The claim was that HeinOnline and JSTOR results show that English-language sources almost uniformly use "Full Faith and Credit Clause". A counterargument was made that the results do not actually show that it is uniformly used. Your own analysis shows this. When you analyse a JSTOR search, you would find 16:6 for capitalising from one page of 25 results and assert this is a 3:1 ratio that supports capitalisation. No discussion would assert that a 3:1 ratio is sufficient to apply capitalisation, nor does P&G state this. This is your own interpretation of P&G (notwithstanding that your own analysis of JSTOR gives a ratio of 2.7:1). Given this, it is apparent that you have assessed the question rather than the strength of the arguments made. I see no substantial difference between your close and that by Wbm. Some of this I might overlook if it were not your choice to analyse 25 results from JSTOR but 100 results from HeinOnline on the stated basis that the former gives 25 results per page and the latter gives scrolling results. There is no substantial difference between analysing an equal number of results in each case. The rational for analysing only 25 JSTOR v 100 HeinOnline results lacks substance, The difference, however, is that a small number of results are more likely to give a skewed result (a statistical "fact"), which has happened in this instance. Considering an equal number of results as done with HeinOnline (ie 100), the conclusion is substantially different, even by the arguments that you would make. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very good close and kept the well-known name used by the U.S. judiciary and the U.S. Constitution. You say that "No discussion would assert that a 3:1 ratio is sufficient to apply capitalisation", well, 75% uppercasing is more than sufficient to apply capitalization. If 25% of sources lowercase then you seem to think that they take precedence over the federal and local judiciaries of the United States and the United States Constitution as the common form of casing? No wonder there is so much controversy in these titling roundabouts when editors want to stand common sense on its head (where it seldom belongs). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Full Faith and Credit Clause

An editor has asked for a Move review of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

drafts

Draft:Arabic language in Islam and Draft:Abdullah Yolcu. 202.134.14.146 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of best-selling albums 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 07:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sultanate of Rum 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 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, BilledMammal. Thank you for your work on Michi (cat). Ingratis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this article. I have reviewed / accepted it. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with @Ingratis:. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Ingratis (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) 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, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sig

FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1212302480 Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 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 18:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violating 1RR

You've violated 1RR on the Israel-Hamas war article. Please revert the last two of the three consecutive edits you made. JDiala (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since those edits are consecutive, they only count as one revert - I have not violated 1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I'll fix it tomorrow. Your edits were just wrong. JDiala (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is not an allowance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just saying hi! Hope you're doing chill and not getting too many ani threats :3

— ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am, and I hope you are as well :) BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Michi (cat)

On 12 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michi (cat), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Julian Assange's lawyer argued that the rules set by the Ecuadorian embassy requiring Assange to take care of his pet cat Michi were "denigrating"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michi (cat). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Michi (cat)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

I don’t mean to pry, but is there a reason you keep your username a red link instead of, say, a redirect to this talk page?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been trouted.

Whack!

You've been collectively whacked with a hover of wet trouts.

Please, for everyone's sake, cool off a little. – The Kip 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barkley Marathons 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 04:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move closed administrator review discussions to subpage

BM, can you help move all of the successful and unsuccessful proposals to the subpage? It makes it easier to track what worked and what didn't. We can do a move back after Phase I is complete. Awesome Aasim 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to write a page on Olivia Frank, would you be willing to answer a few questions when it comes up, as it’s I/P related?

I think she meets notability, but it’s my first wiki page, so I need want some occasional help. Would you be willing to help (within an acceptable volume, of course)? :) FortunateSons (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: Of course; happy to answer as many questions as you have, although there may be a bit of a delay depending on my activity levels. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate it. I mostly made it through the early stages (see: Olivia Frank), but might look for some help either on the next one or on improvements and will reach out :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I and and others have fixed any obvious issues, and I'm looking to improve the article further. Do you see something I or others have missed? FortunateSons (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons: Done some minor editing; apart from that, it looks good - well done! BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good. Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 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, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aadujeevitham

Hey, thanks for closing the move discussion. I'd like to point out that the soundtrack page of the film, Aadujeevitham (soundtrack) was also moved from The Goat Life (soundtrack). Now since the parent article is moved per consensus, the soundtrack page of the movie can also be moved based on that consensus? Or should I open another page move request? Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be reasonable to extend the consensus from the main article to the child article, per WP:NOTBURO. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the soundtrack page, but I think there should be a space there. I don't have PM rights, so can you have a look at it, please. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved; let me know if there are any issues. BilledMammal (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the user again moved the pages back. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted their cut and paste move and left a note on their talk page about how to proceed if they wish to contest this close; hopefully they will follow it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note too, and moved the parent article back. I also put a request at RFPP. If they comply, good and well; else I think I'll have to move to ANI. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settlers

I see you've gone around articles using JWB changing "Pākehā settlers" to "European settlers, such as here. You cite the requested move, but "European settlers" is just an alternative name, meaning that one doesn't need to take precedence over the other. I'm sure you'll agree that this move is controversial, which means that these edits breaks rule 3 of AWB/JWB which says "Do not make controversial edits with it." Because of this, I would ask to ask you to self-revert these changes.

Note: I supported the RM. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 3 says Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc.; I saw the RM as demonstrating consensus that the typical title we use for this should be "European settlers", particularly since much of the reason we moved the article was due to recognizability issues of the term "Pākehā" and per MOS:EGG we should try to use the most intuitive title.

Happy to discuss further. BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this constitutes consensus as Pākehā settlers is an alternative name of European settlers. In more international articles I agree that "European settlers" should be given precedence, as we discussed in the RM, but many of the articles you changed were about New Zealand and use New Zealand English. As you already know, in New Zealand English, both terms are acceptable. I think at this current point in discussion we should follow WP:RETAIN.

I don't quite understand your comment about MOS:EGG because that is about piping links, and not alternative names. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an alternative name, but I don't think that fact changes the fact that we have a consensus to use "European settlers", or means that we should continue using the less common and less recognizable version - this is where MOS:EGG comes in, as it tells us to make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used JWB and instead done it manually (with only 20 pages, it would have been as easy to do manually as with JWB), but I had been using it to assist with closing move requests and I didn't give it much thought. With that said, this probably isn't an overly productive debate, so if you still believe these edits should not have been made with JWB just say and I'll go and revert my edits and then manually re-implement them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was more about the name of the links rather than JWB. Because we both haven't agreed it would probably be worth getting more opinions from the WikiProject New Zealand noticeboard, but I am off to bed. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DECT

Hi, you closed the move to DECT with a 'no consensus'. I disagree. One user agreed after a long discussion, but the people who opposed the move based it on invalid arguments, of which the last user never even replied to my comment. There is a consensus to move the page. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a consensus in that discussion; while you did present evidence, it was based on unreliable sources and so was not worth much in determining how to !weight the votes. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the reliability of the sources was not questioned during the discussion.

Here is a Google Ngram view that shows books, which are generally considered RS: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=DECT%2CDigital+enhanced+cordless+telecommunications&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true

Looking at book titles: https://www.google.com/search?q=intitle:DECT versus https://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=intitle:Digital+intitle:enhanced+intitle:cordless+intitle:telecommunications&num=10 PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

Frankly, I see your editing in the AJ discussion and in other discussions at the board as increasingly WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT. I suggest cooling it a bit. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I have contributed heavily to the AJ discussion I don't think I have contributed more heavily than other participants - for example, Nableezy has made the same number of comments I have. Of course, "others are also bludgeoning" isn't a defense against bludgeoning, but I don't believe I am bludgeoning that discussion or otherwise disrupting it - for example, I think my most recent comment, attempting to assess Al Jazeera's independence by a review of scholarly sources, is productive and useful.

If you disagree, can you be more specific about why you think my contributions are bludgeoning or disruptive? BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Rather than merely saying "WP:BLUDGEON", it would be helpful - and in line with our policies on civility and aspersions - if you explained why you saw my behavior in that discussion as bludgeoning. It would also be useful if you also explained why you didn't see the contributions of editors who have made around the same number of comments as me as also bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a discussion would be productive, ultimately it is not you or I who will decide the matter. I say yay, you say nay, there the matter stands for now. Selfstudier (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've made ~80 comments at RSN in less than a month. You're right that you're not the only one doing similarly but you are one of if not the worst offender there regarding bludgeoning. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of comments alone, while an indicator of bludgeoning, isn't proof. I welcome further discussion of the issues, if either you or Selfstudier is interested in engaging in them and explaining what you see the issue is - although I note, looking over the current page, I've made 71 comments, Selfstudier has made 69, Nableezy has made 96, Iskander has made 70, and Vegan416 has made 60. I'm among the most prolific, but far from the very top, and I suspect it's just a product of extensive discussions on multiple topics rather than bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of comments made by an editor is an indicator and not the definition of any of disruption, bludgeon or IDHT. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 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 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications

An editor has asked for a Move review of Digital enhanced cordless telecommunications. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime: Thank you for the notification. BilledMammal (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from "reasonable observer"

It is my opinion that your targeting of a contributor's talk page for criticism of what you consider to be POV (from your POV) is crossing the line into harassment. Please read the associated page and consider this a warning that from now on you should negotiate content on the talk page of articles rather than arguing with multiple people on her user talk page. Thank you for taking the time to read the policy and to adjust your actions accordingly. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it proper to warn BM re not visiting E-A's page. That is her prerogative, and she hasn't expressed any such opinion (it's not in her style in any case to waste time on these things) Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think it efficient to prolong the discussion on E-A's page as you did by saying (quite rightly) that "this looks like a pattern of vexatious harassment. (source) I, and several others, agree with this assessment. On content pages, he can WP:FOC, thereby keeping his own house in order. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV; it's issues where the editor is failing to accurate represent the source. This can and does result in POV issues, but that isn't why I am approaching them on their talk page - while I do fix the issues when I see them, consistently adding content that fails to reflect the provided source is a problem that needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to create a separate section?

So, why didn't you do the thirty seconds' work to shift that material into a separate section, instead of just erasing it? Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did? BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war

In the past 24 hours you have made two reverts at Israel–Hamas war:

Please self-revert 23 April 2024; 2RR to bring yourself into compliance with WP:1RR. Deblinis (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as the 1RR accusation just up the page - not a violation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) – @BilledMammal: That is, in fact, two reversions within 24 hours on the same page. That is a violation of 1RR. this edit was a reversion (using the undo button) of this edit (1st reversion) and this reversion was undoing this edit. You have been editing CTOPICS for a while now and have for sure learned that 1RR means a single reversion, per page, with only the basic vandalism exceptions being allowed. I do endorse the request for a reversion as it is a violation of the 1RR rule in place and on the main war page nonetheless. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. if there is still a concern about whether or not this would be a 1RR violation, I would be willing to ask a clarification question if those two reversions qualify as a violation of 1RR or if they do not at ArbCom. I just spent 20 minutes hunting for the place where I saw it, but my bad habit of not leaving edit summaries make it impossible to find. However, my understanding came from an administrator regarding a clarification of 1RR, but we can always reclarify if needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists 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 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Flour massacre#Requested move 28 April 2024

Can you save everyone a ton of time and withdraw this and give it 3-6 months before revisiting? At this point it's wildly unlikely to get consensus for a change and will turn into a huge time sink for everyone involved if it's left open. There are no AE powers granted to shut down obviously-going-to-fail-and-very-soon-after-another-RM RMs and such, so I'm just asking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; withdrawn. I'd hoped a month and a half would be long enough for the evidence to be objectively considered, but unfortunately not - assuming sources don't start using massacre I'll open a new one in three to six months as you suggest.

(Unfortunately, this is a common issue with articles titled massacre, on both sides of any given dispute; editors argue, even when the sources don't support it, that tragedies against their POV are always a massacre, and that tragedies in line with their POV never are. It's hilariously blatant at times; in one discussion you will have an editor arguing against using massacre, saying that we have to follow the sources (eg. Wikipedia follows the language of reliable sources.), and in a separate discussion the same editor saying the opposite, that's its obviously a massacre and thus it's appropriate to use it even if no sources do (eg. making "massacre" pretty aptly descriptive)). BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This take on the "massacre" language landscape lacks nuance. One of the big problems in the area is the extreme systemic bias in the media coverage of the conflict – something that has been covered extensively in recent reviews of the language used by outlets. Events on one side are linguistically intensified, on the other diminished; mirroring political bias. So the issue is not merely one of POV, but of POV + systemic bias, and in a way that feeds into the dehumanization at work in the current ongoing genocide. So there's very little to be found hilarious about it. As editors, we very much need to be conscious of this so that we are not simply uncritically or blindly echoing the systemic biases at work. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Before I comment further I want to make sure I have understood you correctly; you are saying that, for the reasons expressed in your comment, we should expect different levels of sourcing for Israeli and Palestinian positions? For example, we need sources calling an act against Israelis a massacre for us to do so, but we don’t need sources calling an act against Palestinians a massacre for us to do so? BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I said that at all. I said that we need to be aware of the systemic bias at work, in order that we might be on guard against it. How that plays out in the case of any particular page varies, depending on both the sourcing and the context. But language, and certain terms, should indeed be used with a degree of consistency between articles and not merely echoed from sources in ways that enforce any systemic bias. I'm sure you've encountered reports on the issue. Here's a large summary of the issue in US reporting, for example. And a recent Intercept piece specifically addressed the use of "massacre". Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you clarify how you propose doing that? Because at the moment, it appears like you are doing it by requiring different sourcing standards for calling acts against Israelis a massacre than for calling acts against Palestinians one. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::::::::::::::

You're about ::::::::::::::::::: past having a productive discussion. Just a reminder to keep an eye on that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching those colons grow with some apprehension - I should have backed out, but I do find it difficult when people are responding to me, and so have varying levels of success. I guess I need to be stricter with myself... BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

At Talk:Israel–Hamas war. nableezy - 23:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert your moving of my comment or this goes to AE. nableezy - 23:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image cartoon on perennial sources page

Hello!

You said that "Restoring status quo; no opinion on the image, but now that removal of this long-standing image has been contested consensus is required to remove it", but I believe this is an incorrect reading of WP:ONUS which is the policy cited in my removal. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The WP policy therefore does not agree with the sentiment you included in your edit summary reverting my removal of the image. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, consensus has been achieved by editing. Further, if you look at WP:NOCON, you will see the only way to remove it is by getting a consensus to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the section of text that you believe says that similar to how I quoted from WP:ONUS please? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on 1RR in ARBPIA

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week from certain pages (Talk:Israel–Hamas war and Israel–Hamas war). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Partisanship and WikiProjects

Hi BilledMammal. Hope you're doing well. I was hoping to have a follow-up discussion with you about your thoughts on canvassing. I appreciate that you brought some data to the discussion, and I think it's interesting to note the ways in which WikiProject LGBT members (loosely defined) differed from the rest of the respondents. I disagree with your conclusion that notifying the WikiProject counts as a "partisan" notification. I worry that such an interpretation would disqualify any WikiProject notifications, since it's commonly and unsurprisingly true that WikiProjects attract and retain editors with shared interests (and sometimes opinions). Unless you're opposed in general to WikiProject notifications—which is probably a viewpoint that should lead to wider discussion—I don't think it's a useful objection to the specific notification that happened here.

I wouldn't defend such notifications in all cases. An example of a partisan WikiProject notification might be selecting three of the five tagged WikiProjects in an evidently biased manner, or tagging an unrelated project based on assumptions about the opinions of its members (like tagging WP:WikiProject Contract bridge in a dispute about Ageism). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I’m not ignoring this; I just want to wait to reply till I have enough time to give it the attention it deserves. BilledMammal (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a rush item, and I know you have others on your plate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Sorry for the delay.

I think we need to consider this in the context of two rulings from ArbCom. The first establishes that notifications to forums mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience are considered canvassing. The second establishes that "biased " or "partisan" means non-representative of the broader community - it doesn't mean they have no opinion.

Considering both of these, if a forum is not roughly representative of the broader community on a specific topic then they should not be notified of discussions on that topic, as doing so can disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

Your concern, as I understand it, is that this would apply very broadly, preventing all WikiProject notifications. However, I believe this concern is based on two flawed assumptions.

First, it is based on the assumption that all Wikiprojects are not aligned with the broader community on the topics they are interested in. This doesn't align with the data; for example I've found no reason to believe that Wikiproject Physics or Wikiproject Lego are partisan or biased on any topic, and thus it remains appropriate to notifying them about any discussion related to their area of interest.

Second, it is based on the assumption that Wikiprojects that are not aligned with the broader community on some topics related to their area of interest are not aligned on all topics related to their area of interest. This also isn't true; for example, Wikiproject LGBT was recently notified about a requested move from "Nemo (rapper)" to "Nemo (singer)"; there is no evidence or reason to believe that their partisanship or bias extends to this topic, making this notification appropriate.

Finally, as a general argument; the impact is that discussions are more likely to reflect the position of the broader community. This is generally a good thing, but it also has the effect of reducing conflict on Wikipedia; many conflicts emerge because of walled gardens where a small group of interested editors are at odds with the broader community. By reducing the ability of these walled gardens to be formed and maintained we reduce the potential for conflict.

Regarding your example of what you see as partisan WikiProject notification (selecting three of the five tagged WikiProjects in an evidently biased manner), you may find #Canvassing interesting, where an editor warned me for notifying the Wikiprojects that an editor forgot to notify regarding an RfC at Isla Bryson case. I think some of the editors notifying these WikiProjects are aware that they are not representative and may be trying to shape consensus to reflect their preferences, and might oppose efforts to get broader participation because it would dilute the influence of those projects. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus

Just checking that you did intend Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus → Israeli airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, rather than to Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, i.e. the 'of' / 'on' difference?? Nurg (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, fixed. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad we caught it in time. Nurg (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst August von Hannover

I would like you to reconsider your close of this move discussion because you claimed that you were following the naming convention, but I pointed out in my oppose to the move that the naming convention actually favours the English-language common name in reliable sources. As I said in the move discussion, the opening rationale is a distortion of the guideline. You also claim "a majority of reliable sources do not use the title", which is a false claim that was disproven during the discussion. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific naming convention that is relevant to that article doesn't favor English sources; Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use.

In the discussion, I didn't see it proven that a majority of reliable sources generally used the title; while Theoreticalmawi's method wasn't perfect, being based on sources in the article, it did attempt to address the question of whether a majority of sources used the title. As such, I gave that evidence more weight than I gave the evidence you presented, which only addressed the question of whether reliable English language sources used the title. However, even without considering that and just adding the two together there isn't a significant difference in either direction. BilledMammal (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Ernst August von Hannover (born 1983)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Ernst August von Hannover (born 1983). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Ukrainian conflict (1939–1947) move

As far as I can see, the move under the Polish–Ukrainian relations (1939–1947) title was supported by:

@Piotrus (Support the rename per my comments from before)
@Dƶoxar (I see more sense in rewriting the article in the broader context of Polish-Ukrainian relations at that time)
@Nihil novi (SUPPORT the proposed title change)
@Sleetleos (Support This article covers a series of armed clashes that occurred between Ukrainian guerrillas (UPA) and Polish underground armed partisans. A suitable title for this article should be "The clashes between Polish and Ukrainian guerrilla forces in WW2". However, the proposed title is also an acceptable option but not ideal)

Of these, only Sleetleos opted for a title more focused on conflict than relations, but he agreed that my proposal was a good one either way. The outcome of the discussion is quite clear to me. I don't quite understand your decision on staying with “conflict.” Best regards Marcelus (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I read Piotrus' previous comments, they were arguing for a rename that kept "conflict". I also interpreted Nihil novi's argument as being more against classifying the conflict - whether into ethnic groups or other groups - than about moving away from "conflict".

Adding these to the two editors who opposed the move (one explicitly, one implicitly), I couldn't see a consensus to remove "conflict". BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope @Piotrus can clarify his stance here, but I interpret his vote as a support for the proposed title. @Nihil novi is clearly against framing it as a 'conflict' (no matter ethnic or any other), he even says Various factors indeed, such as the rise of a common threat, can even bring previous opponents into common alliance, which indeed happened here between AK and UPA. Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why didnt the user ping me in this discussion? And Also the name Polish-Urainian conflict (1939-1947) would seem like the conflict started in 1939 which only some historians can agree on. And the name is also contradictory like in the infobox and there is no mention of 1939 in the entire article. Considering the fact that Historians cant agree on when the conflict started the term "ethnic conflict made much more sense. Olek Novy (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM closure for And Here She Is#Requested move 7 May 2024

Regarding the closing of this RM as a bold move, I don't see a good reason for stating that. Per WP:RMNOMIN, the RM was open for a full 7 days without objection, and there is no requirement for others to respond. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, there is currently a discussion on that question at User talk:TheTVExpert/rmCloser#User:BilledMammal/rmCloserExpanded.js.

When closing I prefer to include that statement as silence can only be assumed to be consensus until someone objects. BilledMammal (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Move test page 1

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Wikipedia:Move test page 1, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Move test page 2

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Wikipedia:Move test page 2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: How did you find these pages? And generally, is there any urgency in deleting them that it cannot wait until after I have finished my testing? BilledMammal (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For testing, feel free to use test.wikipedia.org; alternatively, the Draftspace. The project namespace should not be used for testing. Cheers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: Thank you - however, I would appreciate you answering my question regarding how you found these pages. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Routine monitoring of Wikipedia to ensure policy compliance. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: Can you explain how you came across them during this "routine monitoring"? BilledMammal (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm focused on building an encyclopaedia and have no interest in analysing how MediaWiki software navigates to pages. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move test page 1

Hello, BilledMammal,

Are your "testing" experiments finished? If so, please tag this page, and any others you created in Project space, for CSD G7 speedy deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wondering how I came across this page, one can either run a Quarry query for pages misplaced into Project space or just look at our Move log. You created all of these pages in Project space and then kept moving them around to different titles so they really stood out on the Move log. Typically when editors do repeated moves of pages, it's a sign of vandalism, not testing experiments. Also, any editor can look at your Contributions page after they came across one of these pages and see additional pages like this you created. It's not hard to discover them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about how you came across it; I'm aware you, unlike Kashmiri, run such Quarry queries and generally monitor for this sort of thing. In addition, unlike Kashmiri, you don't have a habit of turning up at discussions and articles shortly after I edit them - while previously I have tolerated it, it was a little too obvious in this case that they had found them through hounding. I'm hoping it will stop now they know I have clear evidence, but we will see. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Wikipedia:Move test page (protected) pls. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost; I intended to finish yesterday, but something came up. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Twitter article

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views.
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an administrator noticeboard discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ecrusized (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix round-robin moves in the rmCloserExpanded script

Could you please fix how the rmCloserExpanded script does round-robin moves? It should do one move for the article and two for the redirect, rather than two moves for the article and one for the redirect. This means that if A is the article to be moved and B is the redirect, then the script should do moves in the following order: B → Draft:Move/A, A → B, Draft:Move/A → A; rather than A → Draft:Move/B, B → A, Draft:Move/B → B. GTrang (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GTrang: Sure; I'll add that to the known issues list and get to it next. I assume this is to minimize the impact on watch lists, as the target, typically a redirect, will usually have fewer watchers than the article? BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Black sentiment

Hello, BilledMammal,

You moved this article but I think the article content has to be changed to match the new article page title. Thanks for following through on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated what I can; some of it is too related to content for an editor unfamiliar with the topic to update, however, so I pinged the editor who opened the request regarding that. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of RM at Talk:Theory of forms

Hello, BilledMammal. You have new messages at Talk:Theory of forms#Closure.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Graham (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Rinconada

This was a poorly executed move btw, you seemed to miss the prior existence of La Rinconada (disambiguation). Giant Snowman 17:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t even think to check for whether a dab page already existed; thank you for correcting that. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Frederick the Great 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 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Language Society move closure

Hi BilledMammal - I saw you closed the proposed move of Welsh Language Society to Cymdeithas yr Iaith as no consensus and gave no explanation as to why.

While the votes were a roughly even split, I gave large number of reliable sources demonstrating that Cymdeithas yr Iaith is the primary and predominant name in English language sources as per WP:COMMONNAME. The counter-argument seemed to be that if an English Language name exists and is sometimes given as a courtesy translation in RSs, it should take precedence over a non-English name even if it is never/hardly ever used as a standalone title which seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:UE.

Based on policy I think a consensus to move should have been found. Morwennol (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complicated discussion; give me some time to re-evaluate and I'll get back to you. BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing it again, I stand by my previous close. Editors in opposition argued that even sources that do use the Welsh name commonly translate it into English, and I found no basis in policy to give those !votes less weight.

Further, given the recent consensus not to move the article, there is a slightly higher bar to be met to produce a different consensus - that result has to be taken into account. BilledMammal (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with @Morwennol that I don't find your explanation satisfactory. Why have you ultimately given the 'oppose' argument more weight in your decision, or why was the evidence of the 'support' camp that 'Cymdeithas yr Iaith' is the common name not sufficient? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give the "oppose" arguments more weight, I gave them equal weight.

It wasn't sufficient because the 'oppose' camp argued that most of these sources provided a translation, and argued that this demonstrated that the name wasn't English and thus WP:UE wasn't met. BilledMammal (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that to be an incorrect interpretation of WP:UE, as it seems clear that 'Cymdeithas yr Iaith' fits the criteria of 'a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) [which] is commonly used by English-language sources.' The policy doesn't state that the English name must be used if one exists, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also draw your attention to 'In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage.' In this case, the two most common English language usages are to use 'Cymdeithas yr Iaith' untranslated, or to give the Welsh name first and the English translation second. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent consensus" was imo a premature close which followed the same faulty understanding of WP:UE.

It's simply not true that "Editors in opposition argued that even sources that do use the Welsh name commonly translate it into English, and I found no basis in policy to give those !votes less weight."

The oppose side was unable to cite a single recent reliable source that used "Welsh Language Society" on its own without "Cymdeithas yr Iaith" (I did find a Daily Mail opinion piece that did but its biases are likely identified by it following "Welsh Language Society" with "nutters").

They argued that some sources which use the Welsh name offer a courtesy translation and this should be used as evidence that "Welsh Language Society" is the common name (despite those same sources using Cymdeithas and Cymdeithas yr Iaith elsewhere in the article). This is in contrast to a number of sources that do not translate the name and use exclusively Cymdeithas yr Iaith (even sources that might generally be considered hostile to the welsh language). Morwennol (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert the move as there was clearly no consensus

Hi, you closed the move discussion here Talk:Bud Light boycott#c-BilledMammal-20240602060900-Requested move 13 May 2024, but there was clearly non consensus reached, so per WP:NOCONSENSUS the status-quo be maintained per our policies and the article not be moved. Raladic (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a consensus; twice as many editors supported moving as opposed, and the arguments on each side were equally as strong. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the arguments for the move were made based on WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation and you know yourself that this isn’t a WP:VOTE, but policy based discussion.

The two newspaper articles cited don’t even assert themself whether there is any clear ongoing boycott and are reporting that the company has recovered since the boycott, with its stock price well rising since the boycott, which is also why they are missing in the article since we don’t speculate.

The notable event happened in 2023 and it does not appear clear that notability beyond it was established, thus the prior title was accurate.

Please self revert per our policies. Raladic (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were two reasons for the move:

That the boycott is ongoing
That disambiguating with 2023 is unnecessary

While the arguments for #1 had less weight as you point out, though not no weight, the arguments for #2 were not. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you in an AE report

The thread is The thread is JDiala.

Thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous move with Mario vs. Donkey Kong

You seem to have accidentally moved the page to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), which is the wrong place for the series article. The proper thing to do would have been to move it to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series). This was not a page swap situation. I would have waited until the AfD was over before enacting the move, but now you will have to fix it by moving the page and AfD once again to the correct place. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the RM, I wasn't certain where to move the article now at (video game); it's unclear where Mario vs. Donkey Kong should go, given this result and absent a result for the AfD. For now I have left it at Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), although I have re-targeted the links that used to go to Mario vs Donkey Kong to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (sub-series); if the AfD is closed as keep or no consensus, any editor should feel free to move the article to any title other than Mario vs. Donkey Kong. BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't know, then wait until people gain consensus? There's no reason to immediately close the discussion at the deadline. Even though I disagree with the move, I still think that if it is moved, a consensus on its target should have been reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please never move an article that is in the middle of an AFD discussion. It can be very disruptive. Don't page movers look at the article and see the AFD template on the page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I thought I successfully cleaned up the AfD? If there was something I missed, please let me know - I intend to add support for moving articles when in the middle of an AfD to Move+. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus to move the article at Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) to Mario vs. Donkey Kong, and no one appeared to care where Mario vs. Donkey Kong went - I decided that the latter could likely be decided through normal editing processes. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move+ protection issue

Hi BilledMammal. When I tried to use User:BilledMammal/Move+ to move Nir Oz attack through extended-confirmed protection, it didn't recognize I had the permissions to do so and tried to send me off to RM/TR. Perhaps it doesn't realize that sysops are extended confirmed? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; I assumed that it would recognize you as such because, for example, it recognize extended-confirmed editors as auto-confirmed, but I may have been wrong - I'll take a look and ping you when fixed (or at least when I think it is; I can't test while my request for admin permissions on test wiki is still pending) BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: I think it's fixed now, thank you for reporting it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need a left sock (for mobile)

I’m not sure if it’s only a problem on my end, but the formatting is moved to far right for me. Whether or not to fix it is up to you, right socks aren’t wrong socks :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it on mobile, and I can't find the issue unfortunately... BilledMammal (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it’s an IOS thing. I will send you a message with a very poor drawing. FortunateSons (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Welsh Language Society

An editor has asked for a Move review of Welsh Language Society. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited advice

Just so it's clear where I'm coming from, I'll preface my comments with this:

I think your push to clean up stubs and mass-created articles is one of the project's most valuable developments in the last few years.
I share your opinion that WikiProject notifications can be used as a form of votestacking, and I've voiced my concerns about the cliquey nature of WikiProjects in the past.
I only have a few stray edits in the Israel–Palestine area, but I have a general distaste for our tolerance of editors who put their personal beliefs above the project, and this area is some of the worst of that.
While I've never filed an AE request, there are multiple times where I've come within a hair's breadth of doing so, and I often read reports to stay on top of recent disputes. It needs to be used more to regulate inappropriate partisan activity in contentious topics, and you're one of the few people trying to make this happen.

With that out of the way, I ask as your peer whether you'd be willing to consider taking a breather. In the past month or two especially, I feel like I've seen your name at the center of several highly visible disputes, and I don't believe I'm the only one who's taken note of this. You've been pretty good at doing things above board, which is how you dodged a bullet at ANI a few weeks ago, but don't count on that next time. Fighting on several fronts like this almost inevitably leads to consensus that it's battleground behavior and support for bans from the relevant areas, whether you're in the right or not. I've found that after participating in a major conflict or dispute, it's helpful to step away from controversial areas for a while so as not to even look at them and instead edit somewhere quieter or more collegial, if only for my own mental health.

And I'm not unaware of the various talk-page stalkers of all stripes who are reading this. Consider this general advice for all of you. If you're reading this, you're probably too invested as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right; I need to focus on some things outside of Wikipedia for the next few weeks anyway, and then when I have more time to commit I want to focus on improving Move+ and addressing the various concerns raised with the NSPECIES proposal.

Thank you for the comment; I appreciate it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link me to the NSPECIES proposal? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilledMammal/NSPECIES; currently being discussed here.

(On a related note, have been less than successfully at fully stepping back, although I think I have done so partially...) BilledMammal (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right of way

Hi, I'm puzzled by your edit to Right of way. Can you explain yourself? As far I can see a discussion was ongoing and no consensus had been reached. Also the new title is very confusing. See my comments on Talk:Right of way (public throughway). Apparently in the US a throughway is a motorway, at least according to my dictionaries, so is incorrect/highly confusing for this article. Rwood128 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus, both by weight of numbers and by strength of argument, to disambiguate the title. Further, the RM had been open for a month, and while discussion was continuing it wasn't getting any closer to forming a consensus on where to move the article that is now at Right of way (public throughway). I came to the conclusion that further relisting wouldn't help; instead, it would be more productive to implement the identified consensus and allow a new RM to be opened solely on the topic of where that article should go - which I encourage you or another editor to open at any time. BilledMammal (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical

Regarding your close of Protestant Church in Germany: I don't follow your reasoning. Evangelicalism, which "Evangelical" suggests, is not a bit different in translation but almost the opposite. Groups adhering to evangelicalism are often not part of the Mainstream Protestant Church, EKD. Do you understand that? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do. However, I still had to down weight those !votes, as for translations we are instructed to follow English sources where available, rather than relying on what editors believe it most accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, English is not my first language, and I don't understand your reply. The Protestant Church of Germany has a difficult relation to evangelicalism; that is not a belief but a fact. The church recently noticed, and changed their misleading name. Why we would still keep it, remains a mystery to me. They learned, and we could do the same, instead of sticking to common name. - I have no problem with a common name which is wrong for things such as Frankfurt Cathedral, which has never been a cathedral. But for a present organization with a program, it is not good to have the program misrepresented in the name. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why we would still keep it, remains a mystery to me.

Because we have a set of policies and guidelines that we use to determine an articles title, and they prioritize the WP:COMMONNAME over the WP:OFFICIALNAME. When other sources catch up with the churches decision then we can rename the article. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted oppose and am obviously partial, but I really don't think a strong case was made by the pro-move camp on the common name, which you apparently considered controlling. Ngrams only goes back to 2017, and I strongly suspect that Britannica hasn't updated their article recently either. It's not contested that "Evangelical" would be the correct name circa 2017, but the pro-"Protestant" camp was citing recent developments in the past 2 years, which cannot possibly be reflected in sources from before 2022. The nominator wrote "The onus must be on those preferring "Protestant" to demonstrate such a shift in meaning" but I'd argue that the Washington Post article I linked absolutely satisfied such a demand (linked again here as unlocked for non-subscribers). When the matter is unclear, defaulting to the preferred WP:ABOUTSELF name is a common compromise, which would favor "Protestant". I'm not sure if this is worth a MR because, strictly speaking, "Evangelical" isn't an incorrect title and certainly has the weight of history behind it, but I don't find this close very compelling, and it will just result in another RM in a year. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know I have seen this and am not ignoring it; I will look the discussion over again sometime in the next couple of days and get back to you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is helpful in the future, if you want to avoid a paywall, whether for yourself or to provide the article to others, put archive.li in front of the url; while the link you provided did not work, this gave me access to the article. It works in about 95% of cases.

I've looked over the discussion again, and I stand by my close. I understand the concerns that "Evangelical" has different meanings, but it wasn't sufficient to overcome the explicit WP:COMMONNAME and implicit WP:ESTABLISHED arguments.

You're probably right that it will result in another RM in a year, because it is likely that sources will switch over time, but we have to wait for that switch to occur - we can't lead it. An alternative would be to seek to alter our guideline at WP:ENGLISH to prefer translations that give readers a more accurate initial impression of a topic, even when such a translation is less common - I think I would support such a proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fallout closure

Thanks for engaging in RM closure at Fallout, I recognize that it's a non-trivial task. However, I have to point out a couple of things. Maybe this won't change your mind here, but hopefully it should be helpful for the future.

You wrote editors supporting the move argue that this is the primary topic by use. I don't think this is an accurate reading of my position, which I felt was the best elaborated one and should have been given weight commensurate to that (maybe I am wrong, please correct me if so). I was arguing that other kinds of fallout also have substantial long-term significance - both the mass of entertainment topics, the volcano fallout and the various rhetorical fallouts. Usage aspects are definitely not to be ignored, obviously, but the argument was not purely "long-term significance of nuclear fallout does not override usage", it was "long-term significance of nuclear fallout isn't big enough to override usage + long-term significance of all other topics".

But the second sentence you wrote is what really confused me, including neither side significantly disputed the factual basis for the others position and this would come down to which side has the most support among editors. This interpretation runs counter to WP:RMCIDC, which advises:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

If you thought the factual dispute wasn't carried out in a way that made it clear which facts were most relevant, that could just mean that we were talking past each other. That's something that can be addressed by requiring a better, consensus-building discussion. It should not be addressed by !vote-counting of any kind. --Joy (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "significantly" because you did try to argue that it wasn't primary by long term significance. However, that position was not shared by other editors, and so its impact on the overall result was not significant.

Unfortunately, I can't require a better, consensus-building discussion. If there are two sides who disagree with each other, and neither side is convincing the other, then there is nothing I as a closer can do to make them agree - all I can do is assess which side has the stronger arguments, and if each side has equally strong arguments, which sides position has more support amongst the community. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see how a finding of no consensus would be the obvious choice in cases where you don't see people explicitly changing their minds. At the same time, that requirement would be onerous, because it would give even more weight to status quo - it's actually very easy to just leave a comment and not entertain a discussion any more. That is why the WP:CONS policy actually does not require convincing others. Instead, it advises against disruptive stonewalling (which typically doesn't happen, and didn't happen here, but just to illustrate the trend). All it says about people who stop responding is:

Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated.

So we can't dismiss those contributions, we have to weigh them in, but we don't have to weigh everything equally. If a concern has actually been answered, and there's been no followup, it's perfectly reasonable to consider it in that context, not as a standalone immutable !vote.

The consensus policy subsequently states:

The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible.

The closer is perfectly allowed to decide to weigh !votes with no arguments less, and to weigh arguments that were countered less, and if they find that a change will not actually cause anyone to be upset, that can still lead to a legitimate finding of consensus.

Obviously if you're still convinced that the arguments were equally strong on the whole, that is fine. I just want to make sure we don't treat every comment in a one person, one vote kind of way. --Joy (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, however, your rebuttal was a subjective one, not an objective one - it is possible for such a rebuttal to swing consensus, by convincing other editors of your point of view, but it doesn't permit the closer to down weight the !votes of those who disagreed with your rebuttal. BilledMammal (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how do you not assess some of the opposition as subjective, then? :D I entered a fair bit of objective data into the discussion, and I followed it up with much more data in Talk:Fallout (disambiguation)#some page view statistics, where I also then listed data points that contradict the claims that it's only nuclear fallout that is referred to as fallout because I found a couple of articles in the encyclopedia already that actually do that; one of those was about an attack on a nuclear reactor, no less. Did you see that? --Joy (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't particularly care to try to convince you to think of the outcome of this specific Fallout discussion here, but I do want to know more about the behavior and mindset of a discussion closer to be able to format future discussions in a better consensus-building way. TIA. --Joy (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did; the issue with "long term significance" is that it is very subjective in most cases. However, that guideline is also the consensus for the community, and so as closer it is rare that it is appropriate for me to discount such votes; the community introduced a subjective guideline, and I can't reject that decision.

The exceptions are when it is provable through reliable sources that a specific topic does not have long-term significance, or that a different topic has comparable or greater long term significance, but in this case that didn't happen and I suspect that it would be very difficult to demonstrate.

To try to generalize this, to try and address your question about the the behavior and mindset of the discussion closer; when it comes to subjective questions, it is far closer to a vote than most of us would like. For example, when guideline A says we should use title "Foo" and guideline B says we should use title "Bar", and neither side can prove the other guideline doesn't apply, then per WP:POLCON we determine which title has consensus by the level of support in the community for that title. In such circumstances, the way you get the closer to close in favor of your position is by convincing the community that your position is the right one.

For more objective matters, present your arguments clearly and concisely, and leave it at that.

Regarding claims that it's only nuclear fallout that is referred to as fallout, I don't believe that any editor made that claim - my reading of the discussion is that they acknowledge other topics are also referred to by "Fallout", but that this has the most long-term significance. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps something could be done to clarify the application of the long-term significance guideline so it's not seen as subjective. For example, subject all parties to the simple requirement of citing sources? For example, weigh links to new supporting evidence more than mere assertions. Same for the people supporting, and the people objecting. Give different weight to those who just say "per nom" and those who elaborate. That would be in the spirit of WP:DPT and WP:CONS. --Joy (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism

Hi I think your closure of this move proposal was improper, it is barely a weeks old and it sits at 2-1 against with 1 of the ‘against’ mild and discussion ongoing. Can you please reverse this Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was opened fifteen days ago, and no additional editors participated since the last relist. However, since it has only been relisted once I don't mind relisting it again; reverted my close and relisted. BilledMammal (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Trilletrollet. Thank you. — Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this message as you've previously warned Trilletrollet. [4] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News?

Why are you changing the link from a topic to a disambiguated title? Is there a move discussion I've missed? BusterD (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. I don't agree with the move, but I can see my nativism driving part of that. Thanks for your several thousand edits this morning. BusterD (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing link to ABC news to ABC news (USA) when that just is A redirect to ABC news? Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a completed move discussion at Talk:ABC News BilledMammal closed. I'm not sure why BM has chosen to do things this way but it's one way to do it. Over 2000 edits this morning, instead of letting the redirect sit there. BusterD (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus that ABC News is not the primary topic. Due to the number of links that need to be retargeted, I am doing that before moving the pages.

As BusterD suggests, I could have moved ABC News to the disambiguated page and left the redirect there while retargetting the links, but there isn't much difference either way. I've also updated the edit summary, to make it clearer why I am doing this. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, your edits summary is misleading, since it says "post-move cleanup", and you haven't performed the move yet. Boggled two experienced editors enough to discuss this with you on your talk. There is a difference (almost 2000 edits a bot could perform), but the practical result is the same. BusterD (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - that's why I've now reworded it, as I said. I'm not aware of any bot that would complete this task; the closest is the functionality I built into Move+. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what confuses me, the move should've been done first. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your reasoning in changing the links to "ABC News (United States)|ABC News" instead of using the pipe trick and doing "ABC News (United States)|" instead? I'm aware it doesn't work in ref templates (including the publisher/work param in cite web/news templates), but is there a way to filter to only not use it for those instances? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pipe trick adds the label during the edit. When you put [[ABC News (United States)|]], it saves as [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]. See Help:Pipe trick#Examples. SilverLocust 💬 13:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was not aware of that, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you could do this through a proper bot account that applied the bot flag to the edits it would go a long way towards not clogging up watchlists (not to mention that you'd avoid violating WP:BOTPOL). If you don't want to create your own bot account, I'd be happy to donate User:Ahechtbot if you wanted to write up the WP:BRFA. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist is flooded with the same copied and pasted edit summary about these changes. The minor edit button exists for a reason. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Often, when a page gets renamed leaving the base name to a disambig page, someone will shortly fix these links to the correct place. Onel and Rodw are the two users I know who fix them. I should have said about fixing these links since there would be thousands. And some of them (unintentionally) points to the US one when they are supposed to lead to the Australian version. This reminds me (even though I wasn't around editing Wikipedia) the New York (state) article originally called New York. This link can lead to an idea of some busy work fixing links. Maybe using DisamAssist works? JuniperChill (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: I'll go get a bot account approved - when I built this part of the script I thought it fell under WP:ASSISTED, but 11,000 edits is pushing that definition, and it would be better to get bot approval. Do you think it would be appropriate to allow "normal" users to use it if there are less than, say, 1000 edits, but require the use of a bot account if there is more than 1000? BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal Not sure where the limit lies. Might want to ask on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from source distortion

Even a cursory examination of the article you cite shows it makes no such claim. Do not restore. Special:Diff/1232358544 Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it to the article talk page. I quoted the part of the source I thought supported the claim; maybe I misunderstood it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the same source misrepresentation you were recently threatening to report another user for... IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, lets take it to the talk page. Perhaps I misunderstood the source when I reverted the IP editor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be discussed, it's a simple misrepresentation of the source. Not an unreasonable mistake to make, but I'm not sure how you can insist it's not a mistake. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'll open a discussion on the talk page and explain why. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whale

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

For being AFK while your userscript is 5,000 edits (and 10 hours) into a 13,000-edit unapproved bot task. SilverLocust 💬 17:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved! I'm going to add limits to prevent it being used by non-bot accounts when it needs to update more than a certain number of pages, perhaps 1000. BilledMammal (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News move

Wow! That's a a huge call you've just made there. Did you look at any of the stats? ABC News gets significantly more visitors than ABC News (Australia), and the links in and out are more significant. I suggest you unclose that request and call for more opinions because that is going to disrupt so many links and so many thousands of readers are going to be redirected. SilkTork (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the stats on ABC News: [5], and here's the stats on ABC News (Australia): [6]. That's a significant difference. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. I think the consensus is very weak for such a move. Should probably have been relisted. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather massive change you are making @BilledMammal (a quick search indicates there are over 10,000 wikilinks to ABC News and ABC News (United States)). You are a non-admin. The discussion was rather scant for such a large move. Perhaps you should halt changing every backlink that exists on Wikipedia (and notifying everyone in the process) as editors more experienced than yourself have already expressed bewilderment here. Οἶδα (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review in order to look at the closure? It does feel like it should have been "no consensus" given of the 4 support votes, half are just "per nom"/"per above" which doesn't explain why they support the nomination and if you remove those two, it becomes 2 support and 2 oppose with BilledMammal as a tie breaker determining the discussion should be closed as "support". Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the same thing here; the discussion wasn't well-publicized at all and having been part of unsuccessful move discussions about American Broadcasting Company to ABC, I would have not pulled the trigger here without at least a few more weeks and much more notice about this discussion. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it as a clear consensus; counting the proposer, five editors supported the move, while only two opposed it - while some of the !votes for where "per nom/per above", there is no reason to discount such votes.

I also found no reason other reason to discount the !votes in support; those editors were unconvinced that the topic was the primary topic by long term significance, and provided evidence to support that in the form of viewership. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the supporters only had 180 edits (and seems to be an SPA on one unrelated talk page)! That's a vote to be cast aside, one was 'per nom' without any elaboration and the other is from the UK just being like 'I hate Americans'. That is not a consensus. For a discussion like this I would certainly not put the same weight on a lacking 'per nom' than the IP, who clearly explained their vote. This was definitely a relist without question, at minimum. Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it that way. We generally don't discount !votes, when policy compliant, from new editors solely because they are from new editors.

I assume you are seeing YorkshireExpat's !vote as the 'I hate Americans'? While it could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner, I saw it as a rebuttal of the oppose !votes; that while this may be the primary topic in the United States, that they dispute that it is the primary topic globally. BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Consensus policy states: Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. So the "per nom/per above" should not be given the same weight as editors who explained their thought process; there also wasn't really a discussion between the editors who stated their thoughts. So I agree with Nate here that it should have been relisted at the very least to generate a more robust discussion or closed as "no consensus". In the mean time, I think enough editors have flagged an issue with this that the discussion should be relisted. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen WP:CONSENSUS interpreted that way, and I don't think it would be productive to do so. If someone writes an effective argument, it would be a waste of editor time to require those who agree with that argument to rewrite it rather than saying "per x".

I realize this is getting a lot more attention now due to the fact that we have to notify every page this article is linked on, but this is a clear consensus in a discussion that has already been relisted; I don't see a justification for relisting it again. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely seen CONSENSUS explained that way before (mostly in AfDs but I think it also came up in the Vector 2022 discussions). Instead of "per nom", an editor can highlight which part of an argument convinces them or add an actual supporting statement because consensus is about discussion and not votes. And given the number of editors who disagree with you, it doesn't appear that the consensus is actually all that clear. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I really don't hate Americans. What I dislike is the Americanisation of EN Wikipedia (it's not US Wikipedia) based on things like nGrams and page views when things like that are going to be inherently biased because of the US's population compared with other English speaking nations. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK can you just STOP for a moment? Drmies (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilkTork, what is going on here? BilledMammal, I can't even find the Talk:ABC_News_(United_States)#Requested_move_18_June_2024 thing that you link in your edit summaries, and I am going back through hundreds if not thousands of your edits to even find the GD discussion. I am getting VERY tempted to hit mass rollback, just to get your attention and stop you. Seriously, if you don't stop I will block you temporarily. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the move discussion: Talk:ABC News#Requested move 18 June 2024. Not sure what happened with the edit summaries but they did originally link there. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This appears to be my fault. I removed that redirect, when I started a separate talk discussion. I'll restore the redirect atop the discussion content to restore that link used in multiple edit summaries. In theory, the link would be the correct location once the page is actually moved.
  
  One comment: I realize that there may be a MR coming, but in the future, if a move involving a disambiguation page is done, multiple editors can help fix the backlinks once everything is in place using DisamAssist. A flag will indicate a high number of links to a dab page to be worked by WP:WPDAB, especially the WP:MDC. -2pou (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
STOP right now please. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: Sorry, only saw your edit your edit after replying to this section at 23:58. I stopped the script immediately, but I see you have already blocked me - can you undo that now?
- The discussion is this one; I linked through the redirect as I wanted the link to keep working after the pages were moved, but I didn't consider that someone might open a discussion at the talk page of the redirect. BilledMammal (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tell me you won't continue and I will unblock you. OK? Honestly, you should have stopped at 18:31, the moment you got a message from SilkTork, and then from a lot of other people. I don't know why you wouldn't listen to SilkTork: bro is a three-time arb and has been here since forever. And that edit summary, with a link that goes nowhere, and the "Preparing to implement"--you weren't preparing, you were executing, and I think that you should not have closed that discussion if, as seems clear, you were so eager to execute. Sorry if I sound miffed, it's just because I'm miffed. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Preparing to implement was referring to the move itself. I wanted to update the links first, so that for readers the transition would be seamless.
    
    I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence; the closing instructions require that closers do any necessary clean up tasks, including fixing mistargeted wikilinks. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#ABC News (United States). GTrang (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll hold off fixing the remaining links until that closes. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your ABC fixes

Please would you consider marking them as "minor" so editors who hide minor edits from their watchlists won't see them? Thank you. soibangla (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you are a creator of this new script. In the future would you add a "mark as minor" option so bulk administrative tasks aren't so disruptive to editors' watchlists? soibangla (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, when I wrote the script I didn't consider the possibility of needing to correct links across thousands of pages - I thought at most it would be hundreds. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You thought this would be a move of hundreds of pages involving two large-scale American and Australian news organizations (the cite links alone?!)? I would've personally let the discussion be open a lot more; the move of anything involving either ABC is something that shouldn't be decided by such a small consensus, and we're probably going to have a review of this (previous moves of ABC US/AU topics have been much more careful and longer-discussed). Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, when I added the functionality months ago it was because there was a move with around 800 links that needed to be updated. I thought that was near the top of what it would be required to do. BilledMammal (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BilledMammal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unfortunately, I noticed that Drmies was trying to get my attention five minutes after they started trying - one minute after they blocked me. They have my attention now, and I don't intend to resume fixing links until them and I can discuss whichever point they have concerns about. In the meantime, can I be unblocked? BilledMammal (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Done. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for ABC News (United States)

An editor has asked for a Move review of ABC News (United States). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. GTrang (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ABC News (disambiguation)

Hello, I see you have moved ABC News to ABC News (United States) per the RfM that was finalized, however the disambiguation page was not moved to ABC News per the proposal. Can this be completed on your end as I do not have the appropriate moving rights? Thank you. MikeM2011 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to wait for the Move Review to close first; once it does close, if the close is reverted, the dab page will be moved. BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Platybot

Hi BilledMammal, you might want to consider adding {{Bot}} to your Bots userpage as someone who just sees the edits and not the BRFA might think it's a case of WP:BOTNAME. Nobody (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph RFC

I saw you raised concerns on the closer's page, I was just wondering if you were planning to take the Telegraph RFC to AN? Void if removed (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal I figured I'd ask my question to you here instead of starting a new topic; do you know if I'm allowed to comment on the telegraph close review, or is there some sort of restriction that exists? JoeJShmo^💌 02:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo: There are no restrictions that apply to the Telegraph review. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JoeJShmo^💌 03:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Void if removed: I was going to, after giving the closer some time to review my final comment, but seems I was beaten to it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography Move Decision

@BilledMammal It looks like you closed the discussion on Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography with the decision NOT TO MOVE. I do not understand this decision as the community seems to agree that the original argument for keeping "Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography" as the title was not valid. The consensus was moving towards reverting the title to "Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography" and adding a section which discusses the difference between the two terms. Can you please explain your conclusion as I do not see how it follows from the discussion? Marashdeh (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Colin°^Talk 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Hamas War

I have noticed that you reverted my edit that showed the different names for the war. You justified this revert by saying that the issue had been discussed before, however, I wasn't able to find this discussion. It would be great if you could provide me with the link to this discussion so I can see exactly what was discussed. Thanks, Zakary2012 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it right now - there are too many archives - but there was even an RfC on it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one discussion: Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 38 (I wonder if this will get reverted since I'm a non-EC user) AndyBloch (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhang Khosro Panah

Hi, I asked for move for this page Farhang Khosro Panah You closed the discussion (nobody participated actually) and the result was MOVED, but nobody moved the page actually. should I open another move request or what ? Thanks. Sports2021 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry. BilledMammal (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle Tramp

Hello. Could you please elaborate as to why you relisted: Talk:Saddle tramp (person)? You did not give any reason for relisting in the History Summary or on the Talk Page itself. Although my nomination was not an actual vote, it was in favor (per nomination). Editors Wikishovel and Necrothesp were in support per clear primary topic (long-term signifiance). The other editor was merely confused that this was not a discussion about the article page itself but actually a discussion about the move. Although there has been little traffic on the Talk Page, the consensus seemed to be in favor of the move per: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on strength of argument I didn't see a clear consensus at this time. Since the discussion has never been relisted I felt one was appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign

Quick question. Could you change the result from "Keep" to "Withdrawn", as the nominator withdrew it prior to it being closed? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done BilledMammal (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign

On 22 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Techmanprieto (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page re-moved?

Thanks for moving Privately made firearm to Ghost gun, per the talk page consensus. However, it seems to have moved back! Do you know what to do? WestRiding24 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discourse with closer before initiating move review of "Ghost Gun move

I type here to express my disagreement as to the recent closing on a page move from "Privately made firearm" to "Ghost gun". I present the following significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion and argue the discussion should be reopened and relisted:

It is not the lack of serial numbers, being 'untraceable ghost' as it would, that makes this manner of firearm distinguishable, but the fact it is made by the private individual. Something better described by "Privately made firearm". From a historical standpoint, an issue that arises from this is that, at least in the United States (which appears to be so heavily emphasized in this article that it has lead to a globalize template being placed), a lack of serial numbers was a common occurrence for much of U.S. history. For instance, U.S. Army weapons made at the Springfield Armory did not have serial numbers until 1865 (even though production began 70 years earlier). Likewise, when the Federal Government did begin considering serial number requirements in earnest, such as with a 1958 regulatory proposal by the IRS, they faced heavy opposition and were ultimately watered down. Even the later 1963 Assassination of John F. Kennedy did little to save early predecessors to what would eventually become the Gun Control Act of 1968 from criticism, of which much was focused on serial number requirements. And, I can find no major news outlets suggesting that such pre-1968 production model firearms are "ghost guns", so the emphasis on serialization imported by the 'ghost' framing is imprecise.
Even when lack of serialization is mentioned, use of the term "Ghost gun" almost always emphasizes that these firearms are homemade, again lending credence that "Privately made firearm" is a more natural title. As an example, in a report by Everytown for Gun Safety on "ghost guns", the authors, lay out their basic definition for the term: "A ghost gun is a DIY, homemade gun made from readily available, unregulated building blocks." However, in stating a defaced firearm is not a ghost gun,the authors make it very clear that the self-assembled nature of these firearms is the main factor, not the lack of serial numbers: "No. Defaced guns are sometimes referred to as ghost guns, but defaced guns are different. A defaced gun is a commercially manufactured firearm that has had its serial number obliterated.". Again, something naturally described in the title "Privately made firearm".
Another issue is that the term "Ghost gun' simply isn't a long-standing common name for these firearms, contrary to what WestRiding24 would like others to believe. The very term "Ghost Gun" wasn't even coined until 2012, and the first scholarly mention I can even find is from 2014. Reporting by outlets explicitly in favor of gun control, such as The Trace, admit as much: "'Ghost gun' is a relatively new term." It should then come as no surprise for me to state that I couldn't seem to find much as for any earlier mention of the term being used the sense given, not at least in Google Scholar, ResearchGate, PubMed, or any other large database.
What I did find however, is that the term "Homemade firearm" predates "Ghost gun" and is used specifically in multiple scholarly publications, such as this one, that one, that other one, and yet another one, all from more than 25 years ago. Consequently, the following comment made by WestRiding24 can be disposed of as simply false: "As for 'Homemade firearm', I don't see that term being used widely at all.".
With respect to the prior move from "Ghost gun" to "Privately made firearm", as opposed to seeing it as a shift from a supposedly 'common name' as argued by the two supporting editors in the recent move request, as far as talk page discourse goes, the change was welcomed and considered as correcting the inherent bias in the prior title. To quote Fuzheado on April 22, 2022, "Folks, the lead of this article is a bit of a Frankenstein's monster - it is still written as if it is talking about the charged term of 'ghost gun' rather than "privately made firearm". Similarly, the term "ghost gun" was not considered a common name, but rather as biased, as evidenced in earlier discourse like that by Asmoaesl, on September 18, 2021, "This page has a lot of bias, quoting news articles of the left-wing and using shock terms like "ghost guns" as opposed to "privately made firearms" as the ATF calls them.".

In conclusion, the title "Ghost gun" is neither recognizable (other than as being biased), nor natural (having being contrived recently back in 2012), nor precise (not obvious that it doesn't include old firearms or those which have been defaced), nor concise or consistent, nor a common name. In contrast, the title "Privately made firearm" is plainly recognizable (as referencing a firearm which is privately made), it flows naturally (a firearm which is privately made obviously is called a 'privately made firearm'), it is precise (making clear an emphasis on self-assembly), concisely does in no less words than needed, and can be consistently used without need for clarification. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you didn’t participate in the RM. Since it has never been relisted I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

put me in the position of taking you to AE along with the other editor. You know the lines between FORUM and proper discussion. Start a new thread, with RSes you want to bring, that doesn't involve speculation about whether bad people can be victims of genocide. If you don't understand why I'm making a big deal of this, try substituting "Gaza genocide" for "Holocaust" and then ask yourself whether we would ever tolerate someone talking about whether bad Jews can be victims of the Holocaust. Levivich (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: In this case, I can’t bring RS - my point is that RS don’t support the claims currently in the article, and the WP:BURDEN is on editors who believe they do to provide sources to support that. I can’t reasonably prove a negative.

Further, I don’t think it’s appropriate to equate this to the Holocaust. This war began when Palestinian militant groups attacked Israel, with the intent of massacring and kidnapping civilians. It is indisputable that the war and the aim to destroy Hamas is justified, even if some actions go beyond what is justified, and to equate the holocaust is to suggest that, at some level, Germany was justified in its actions.

Please self-revert; I don’t think it’s appropriate for involved editors to be deciding what discussions are and are not allowed to proceed. BilledMammal (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of discussing a discussion about "can bad people be victims of genocide?", I would equate all genocides. In other words, that is not a proper subject of discussion on the talk page of any Wikipedia article that has "genocide" in the title. I am not, and would not, otherwise equate the Holocaust with any other genocide or alleged genocide, including Gaza genocide (or Palestinian genocide accusation, for that matter).

Here's the thing, this isn't a dispute about what is in dispute, this is a dispute about how we discuss that underlying dispute. The "how" in the two threads I collapsed (and I will archive the second one) are absolutely unacceptable to me, and I am willing to die on that hill, I really am. The "what" I totally understand -- that is, the criticism that the sources being used in the article currently are sources that give the death toll for the war, not for the genocide, and we should be using sources that give the death toll for the genocide. There is a proper way to have this discussion (that doesn't violate NOTFORUM or BLP).

So here's my compromise offer: I asked you, and the other editor, to bring this up in a new thread in what I see as "the right way." So instead of that, I will not self-revert, but I will start the discussion in a new thread myself, and I'll go get sources for it, too, and then we can have this discussion in "the right way." There is no need to re-open those prior threads when a new one can be started instead and avoids any FORUM/BLP issues, so I'll just start the new one. Levivich (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I don’t think you’re asking the right question. The question is "can fighters killed in a war they started with atrocities be victims of genocide?"

I don’t think your compromise is appropriate either. The emerging consensus in both those discussions was not for inclusion, and as an involved editor you shouldn’t be interrupting that. As such, I again ask you to self revert, preferably restoring both discussions.

If you still think they need to be shut down then you should ask an uninvolved admin to weigh in. BilledMammal (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Can fighters killed in a war they started with atrocities be victims of genocide?" is also a totally inappropriate thing to be discussing on article talk pages. I'm surprised you're suggesting it! "Who are the victims of genocide?" is not a topic of discussion for article talk pages. The appropriate discussion is "What do RS say?" In this case: "who do RSes say are the victims of this genocide?" (it's "Gazans" or "Palestinians"), and/or "what do RS say is the death toll?"

I read the two threads again, and there is no emerging consensus against inclusion.

In the first discussion:
- Unbandito said yes, fighters are included
- M.Bitton agreed
- Kashmiri said there are more than 40k victims
- Dimadick's comment is unclear one way or the other
- Self said not forum
- The only people arguing for change are you and the OP
The second one:
- ArkHyena said prior discussions lean on no change
- Cdjp1 said yes fighters are included
- Kashmiri said yes summary executions are included
- Buidhe said it only matters what RSes say (same thing I'm saying)
- M.Bitton agreed with the collapsing of the first discussion
- Self said not forum
- The only people arguing for change are you and the OP

It's just you and this other new editor who are advocating for a change and think these threads should not have been closed. So the compromise I'm offering is that we split those two things: we can talk about the change that you two want to make to the article, but we are not going to talk about "Can fighters killed in a war they started with atrocities be victims of genocide?" Unless you have RS that talk about it, we're not talking about it. We have RS that give death tolls, and that's something we can talk about. I'm already pulling together some of those RSes and will start that discussion shortly, I invite you to join me there and ask you please leave those other two threads be. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Not against inclusion, but not for inclusion either, and WP:ONUS applies. You’re also missing a few editors - it was more than myself and the OP in the first one - but honestly, we’re straying from the point. You’re involved, and shouldn’t be shutting these down, much less repeatedly doing so over objections. Instead, you should ask an uninvolved admin to do so.

So please, self-revert and approach an admin.

"who do RSes say are the victims of this genocide?" (it's "Gazans" or "Palestinians")

This is why whether fighters who started the war can be victims is relevant. The argument for inclusion is that Palestinians are the victims, and thus all Palestinian casualties are victims. This is synth, and rebuttable both by reference to WP:SYNTH and by questioning whether legitimate military targets like Deif are also victims - a question that is no more inappropriate than the argument it rebuts. BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a linguistic point

"can fighters killed in a war they started with atrocities be victims of genocide?"

Soldiers (grunts) do not start wars. Their leaders do.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets complicated (how much responsibility do Germans, particularly Germans who supported the Nazi party, bear for starting WWII?) but I don’t think that debate is relevant here as we are also talking about leaders like Deif. BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the two threads I closed, and I don't think I missed anyone in my summary above. Who did I miss? It was only you and the OP I see seeking change.

I also see a grand total of four sources posted in those two discussions: IMEU in Jul said 39k, Center for Constitutional Rights in Jan said 24.7k, Euro-Med Monitor in Jan said 31k+. VOA in May doesn't contain the word "genocide." None of these sources support making any change to the article. There was nothing worth retaining in either of those two threads.

Editors are not going to discuss and vote on article talk pages about who should and who should not be considered a victim of genocide. Editors are not going to sort dead people into categories like "legitimate military targets" and "victims". Doing so would violate multiple site policies. We are absolutely not going to talk about whether Deif was a victim of genocide.

The article doesn't even talk about who, exactly, are the victims, or which Gazans or which Palestinians. The article gives a death toll. If there is WP:SYNTH or some other V or NPOV problem with the death toll in the article (or any other part of the article), we can talk about that (and we will when I start the thread shortly). We don't need to talk about whether Deif was a victim of a genocide in order to talk about that. Levivich (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, you didn’t miss anyone, you misclassified them.

However, this discussion is getting very deep, and the underlying point hasn’t changed. You, as an involved editor, shouldn’t be shutting down discussions, and you certainly shouldn’t repeatedly be doing so over objections.

So please, self—revert, and if you think an argument is inappropriate ask an admin to step in. BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who did I misclassify? I see 10 people in the discussion and 2 who sought change. If that's not the correct split, it would change my mind. But if it is, then there is no problem with an involved editor closing the discussion. (And I'm not even shutting down the discussion, I am about to restart it, without the BLP vio and FORUM stuff.) Also, there's no problem with an involved editor closing a BLP-violating thread. But if the split is not so lopsided, then please, tell me where I got it wrong. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thread isn’t BLP-violating.

As for the rest, we can discuss further - once you self-revert. Surely you can see how your actions are inappropriate, and how an involved editor removing a thread when other editors believe it is appropriate is inappropriate?

Please, restore the discussion and add any arguments you want to add to it, rather than starting a new discussion that excludes arguments you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 4#Death toll. Please don't bring up whether anyone covered by BLP is part of the death toll unless you have an RS that's specifically talking about that. Levivich (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t read this until after I made my reply, but I believe my reply is appropriate.

However, I still believe you need to self-revert your involved closures. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think posting the name of a BLP without a source in your first response there was a serious mistake. It's almost as if you're using the talk page to make the point that this person is responsible for the genocide, or that his death was otherwise justified. That would possibly be a TOU violation, I hope you reconsider and change that comment, we can discuss RS coverage of the death toll without naming any BLPs (without RS). At the very least, you really should add an RS there just to cover your ass. Levivich (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the point that his death was justified. Of course it was; he was an active military leader who planned massacres. I’m surprised you’re suggesting it wasn’t?

To me, that is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that requires considerable evidence.

I’m not sure what reliable sources you are asking for - I can provide sources showing that he planned October 7, and I can provide sources that the death toll does not distinguish between civilian and military casualties, if either of those are what you are asking for? BilledMammal (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it wasn't. I'm not suggesting it was. I'm not discussing it, because I'm not going to talk about which BLP's death was justified and which wasn't, unless I'm quoting RSes. But hey, you do you, I'm done trying here. Levivich (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you are saying it wasn’t - when you say all casualties are victims of genocide this includes Dief.

This is why I make the point, because editors are implicitly claiming that he was without sources to support that claim, and I think that implicit claim is so extraordinary that it needs to be pointed out. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1rr at Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza

You seem to have violated 1rr there. Please self rv.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn’t notice that you had edited the page between my edits.

Can you clarify which edit violated 1RR, and which edit it was a revert of? BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This revert (09:58, August 10, 2024) undoes this edit in whole. This revert (10:06, August 10, 2024) undoes removes content added by me in these two edits[7][8].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reverted

However, I’m surprised you were responsible for that edit, given the serious issues with it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: However, you need to self revert as well - 10:04, 10 August 2024 was a 1RR violation, as 04:06, 10 August 2024 was a partial revert of 14:04, 7 August 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reverted VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 10:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Your continued moving of someone else's RFC to a place they don't want it violates the policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Creating a request for comment and violates WP:BRD. You should self-revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over RFC location

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move records

I'm working on this: User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Twitter for the Signpost and wanted to ask how I can find the largest and longest-running RMs, as well as the largest and longest-running combined RMs. If it is these Twitter-related ones, I'll include it in the report. Can I achieve this using Quarry? Svampesky (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svampesky You'd have to mention Star Trek Into Darkness, whose naming discussion spanned 8 archive pages and racked up over 100,000 words (the source that the 40,000 words was pulled from in the lede of Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate was written long before debate actually concluded). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is האופה. Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack page

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Moxy🍁 18:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hey, BilledMammal. Could you please consider archiving? Preferably with a link to your archives? Both make life easier for other editors. I feel like you're way tech competent, but FWIW WP:Archiving (plain and simple) gets it done. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging species articles

I see that you have been tagging stubs on species with the "Primary" template. This is problematic because A, in many cases there is one (or more) secondary sources in the article. For example, Asteromyia euthamiae has a source, "Gagné, Raymond J. (1968). A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Asteromyia (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America. Vol. 6. pp. 1–40." This is a high-level secondary source in the field of taxonomy. 2) But also, all the other sources are secondary, such as ITIS and GBIF. These are curated by paid specialists who make every effort to fix synonyms and otherwise ensure that there are no errors. Third, WP:SPECIES says all valid species are automatically notable. Now, I know you disagree with this, but you will never prevail. So it would be best if you worked with editors (such as myself) to stop the proliferation of these database-derived minimalist stubs. If you look through my comments on user talk pages, I am always asking them to do a better job and flesh out their articles. Abductive (reasoning) 10:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, there is nothing wrong with tagging species articles that lack secondary sources with the primary template; this is because regardless of the notability of the article WP:OR applies. Database sources don't address this issues, as they don't meet the definition at WP:SECONDARY.

Regarding Asteromyia euthamiae specifically, I think you are mistaken about "A Taxonomic Revision of the Genus Asteromyia"; as the article says, the species was described as a new species in that source. However, I could have misunderstood; I'll try to find a copy. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Anyways, as I mention above, it would be better if editors made an effort to keep users from mass-creating these stubs in the future. If you look through the articles I made, at first you might suspect that I was one such user, but in fact the species I choose are "more notable" than the average species. I carefully choose only plants that are of potential interest to readers, such as invasive species, houseplants, or ones that have 500+ Google Scholar results. Most plants are uninteresting. With the flowering plants, any of the 359,933 species accepted by POWO could be made into an stub, but with little potential for improvement. Earlier I counted how many plant species articles there were on Wikipedia, and got 70,405. Right now I would guess that there are 72,000 which is only 20% of the total. I am sure you would agree that mass producing a quarter of a million database-driven stubs would be undesirable. Abductive (reasoning) 21:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilledMammal/Bludgeoning statistics

It might be wise to let a bot do this on the most active discussion pages and widen it as a way to study discussion-related behavior instead of focusing on select editors. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you call it "discussion engagement" or something the name will be less inflammatory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas and ScottishFinnishRadish: That's a good idea. I still want to have a focus on AIP for the current ARCA, but I'll also run a broader analysis, once I'm finished making changes to the script.

I'll also rename both something along the lines of "discussion participation", as that sounds like a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be "Washington, D.C.," in running text.

That is, with a comma after D.C., because in the phrase "D.C." is a clause of its own, as with a city and state. BD2412 T 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, I think you’re right

Can you make that comment at wikipedia:Bot_requests#Need_help_with_a_super_widespread_typo:_Washington,_D.C_(also_U.S.A) so other editors can consider it to, and if necessary I’ll modify what I’m doing? BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. BD2412 T 03:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

thanks for your contributions!! :) xRozuRozu (t • c) 22:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers on "All RFCs" request for comments. 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 12:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes

My eyes! This is great. I'll try to have a proper look at it at some point but I'm short of time. A quick comment re: "I think it demonstrates that the issue of sockpuppets is less significant than we believe. In 2024, only one sockmaster is in the top 100 editors by edit count within the topic area." I don't know but this could be an artifact resulting from a single account model of 'significance'. I see many accounts in that list that I regard as probable unreported socks for various reasons. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I think about trying to measure the amount of sock activity, it seems to present some of the same challenges as trying to measure corruption in a country, or the role of black markets in economics. A difficult puzzle highly susceptible to selection bias and incomplete information issues. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I disagree with your closure here. Can you describe how the proposed name is not the common name? Azuredivay (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no evidence provided to support the claim that it was. BilledMammal (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reopen the RM? I will provide the evidence from Google news that how "Ecolego" is not used by anybody but the proposed name has been. Azuredivay (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for your response. Azuredivay (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch IPA (again)

I did not realize a rule should be implemented for ⟨ur⟩, ⟨ir⟩ and ⟨yr⟩ when preceded by another vowel sign to avoid that stuff like this happens. I’m sorry. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother again, but is there no way to bring this forward? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BilledMammal/SPI Edit Counts

Hello, BilledMammal,

I found this page interesting and I wanted to encourage you to update it every few days or maybe once a week, taking off SPI cases that have been closed. I'm not sure how much work it takes to put this together but I found it useful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:No significant coverage (sports)

Template:No significant coverage (sports) has been nominated for merging with Template:No significant coverage. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metronome Records should not be directed to Category:Warner Music Sweden artists

Hi there BilledMammal, well I know you've got a lot on but I'm hoping that you can help me here. Every time I put in a Category:Metronome Records artists on an artist's page, a bot comes a long and changes it to Category:Warner Music Sweden artists. I know that somewhere back in time someone had a request to change it to Warner as per below
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 10 - Wikipedia.
Well Warner may have bought out Metronome in later years. But Metronome was Metronome for many years. Please see the Discogs - Metronome page. So, what has actually happened is that history has been buried. And there's enough info out there for a stand-alone Metronome Records page. Please can you help in instigating a discussion to restoring Metronome to what it should be. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have a problem

If you don't stop using my AE reports to try and get other editors in trouble. Best bet? Don't comment at all on my AE or other noticeboard filings unless they directly involve you. You'll notice I do the same. I am not your vector, cut it out. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, we're going to look at the entire situation when assessing AE reports. Bringing up the behavior of an editor that was party to a specific dispute is expected. Demanding another editor not discuss disputes you've brought to AE is inappropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about the both of you don't involve yourselves in my disputes in the future? Levivich (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to call out the obvious POV pushing that is occurring here. Me too.

just two months after the previous was closed 16 days after the move review closed, and you know that's the relevant time period, not two months, how is it possible that you did not mention this very relevant time frame? Because saying "16 days" wouldn't support your point; "two months" makes it sound like a long time. You know damn well if it had been two months, I would never have deleted that RM.

that RM was opened just a month after a previous RM - "more than a month" would have been more accurate, and make more sense in comparison to "16 days", but hey, that wouldn't have supported your narrative as well

...after a previous RM was closed against moving the article to a more definitive title. It's amazing that you even draw this comparison. The actual RM history:

Jan 13 - Feb 13, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, not moved [9]
Feb 29 - Mar 26, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza , not moved [10], close writes "I think that a hypothetical Gaza genocide article would probably have some distinctions from either of the existing titles"
May 3 - Jul 3, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → ?, moved to "Gaza genocide"
Jul 22 - Aug 22, move review, endorsed
Sep 7 (16 days later) - Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024, Gaza genocide → Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war, back to "accusations", which basically the same as "allegations," the title we just moved it from

These same editors had no objection to that RM If it's not moved, it makes sense to keep trying with a new RM (especially when the closer of a previous one suggests it). If it is moved, and the move is endorsed at MR, it doesn't make sense to open a new RM back to the original title 16 days later. Surely you can understand the logic of this, and understand that it has nothing to do with POV pushing.

and some such as David A were instrumental in opening it. False statement. The RM you linked to was opened by another editor on May 3. You linked to an edit by David A that was on June 16, over a month later. That is not accurately described as "instrumental in opening it" in any possible way. Further, the edit isn't David opening an RM, it's David trying to bring that RM to a close. Further further, it worked, and brought the RM to successful consensus that was upheld on MR.

Effectively, these editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not Absolute, verifiable bullshit. Do you have any evidence that any of the editors you are referring to favored "Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" in the previous RM? [11] I didn't vote in that RM. Neither did Selfstudier, TarnishedPath, or Sean.hoyland, WikiFouf, xDanielx, Bluethricecreamman... the other editors who commented at the AE. You opposed that RM, and David A supported it. So what? David A also wrote, in that RM that he finds "Gaza genocide" preferable. So, pretty consistent on his part. You have zero evidence to support "editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not."

and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this. So who is in this tag-team, then? And who's using AE to try and enforce what, exactly?

I think you have some more editing of your statement to do. Levivich (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, since this isn’t the right place for this discussion:

Whether you consider the time since the RM or the move review the relevant period, the double standard is telling.
It shouldn’t matter whether the result is "moved" or "not moved". They are equally valid consensuses, and it makes no sense to say that it’s acceptable to have a new RM shortly after one but not after the other. I’m also not seeing that comment by the closer as recommending a new move discussion.
The editors opposing this new discussion favour "Gaza genocide". Further, the RM I’m referring to is the second (proposing "attempted genocide"), not the first.
David A’s edit opened up the "three options" section, which was the one that eventually found a consensus. I believe "instrumental" is an accurate description.
The members are you and Selfstudier. With that said, believe it or not, I have been attempting to not have an issue with you; for example, I declined to bring up your multiple reverts within 24 hours (18:55, 5 August 2024, 18:51, 5 August 2024) to shut down discussions on the inclusion of the death toll, even though it would demonstrate:
- A pattern of involved closures at that article
- A pattern of double standards, where you are allowed to revert multiple times to close a discussion, but other editors aren’t allowed to revert multiple times to reopen one

As this is the wrong location, please make further replies at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better check those diffs and dates again, and then edit that statement, too. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, corrected; I provided the second diff twice. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. Levivich (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fixed now? BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I notice you haven't declared your conflict of interest in the NSPECIES debate despite being a platypus. Polygnotus (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Siren's Curse 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, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]