User talk:BD2412

It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

(Thanks to Alan Liefting, via BMK)

Status: Active. bd2412 T

Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412

Archives

By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):

Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th

Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

---

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):

001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015-016

017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030-031-032

033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045-046

Grammy Awards

Hi. I think you may want to change the wording of your close, as it was moved! Talk:Grammy Awards#Requested move 27 April 2021. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's an oddity. BD2412 T 15:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Forest Lake

I am puzzled by your closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Resort. The connection between Forest Lake Resort and the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest is tenuous: some years before the state purchased the land that formed the state park, it had been owned by the man who also owned the resort. After he died in 1941, they passed to different people. The resort continued to be run by private owners into the 1960s, while the state purchased the land that became the state forest in 1949. I suspect that the resort hotel is now the Our Lady of the Pines Catholic church, but am not sure. It is definitely not in the state forest.

Why not just leave the resort article separate? Or if it is to be merged, merge it into the administrative unit that contains it, Cobb, California. I was thinking of expanding the article a bit after the AfD was closed, although there is not much to add, but am not sure what to do now. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I was also sort of thinking of cleaning up the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest article, which has a fair amount of unsourced, inaccurate or irrelevant material. Now it is even worse! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to change the merge target and relocate the content to a more appropriate encompassing article. The consensus that the contested subject should not have a separate article remains clear, though. BD2412 T 15:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not see that consensus. Uncle G (I think) and I were in favor of keeping the article on the grounds that it passed WP:GNG, Alexandermcnabb wanted to delete it or maybe make it a footnote in Boggs Mountain, and Pontificalibus, who had got mixed up about the sources and thought it was in the state forest, wanted to merge into Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. Surely though a merge discussion is separate from an AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure continuing the discussion on the closer's talk is even polite. It's right to close the location article (you moved it to a resort title, halfway through the AfD, remember User:Aymatth2?) as delete or merge. Merge to Boggs Mountain or Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest I care not - but this location/resort is not notable and doesn't deserve an article. But, as I say, I don't think User:BD2412's talk is the place to continue debating a consensual, clear, close. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no explicit statement by UncleG that would contravene a merge of the content. They've been around a long, long time, and know how to !vote Keep where they want their opinion counted that way. BD2412 T 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not even sure Cobb, California would be the correct merge target. Google maps, not always accurate, shows Forest Lake Drive as defining part of Cobb's western boundary, and shows Forest Lake mostly to the west of that road, outside Cobb. It gives a marker for Our Lady of the Pines to the east of the road, but a click on the church name gives images of the large building to the west of the road, which may be the old resort hotel. Certainly the correct merge target is not Boggs Mountain or Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, and it is dubious whether it is Cobb, at least as defined by Google. It definitely was in Lake County, California, so I suppose it could be merged there, but that seems a bit lop-sided. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I would think that for a lodging to be notable, we would need to be able to pin down where it was. BD2412 T 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really. It is discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources, which is all it takes to be notable. There is enough detail for a short article. Modern maps show roughly where it was and there will be old maps that show exactly where it was, just not online. We know it was some distance from Boggs mountain and never had anything to do with the state forest. We can see Forest Lake Drive with a large wooden building just west of it, now a church, which may or may not be the old hotel. But that is original research. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is that it is part of some larger geographic unit. Merge it there. Offline maps can be used as a source. BD2412 T 21:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am in Costa Rica and have no hope of finding an offline map. I only know for sure it was in Lake County, and that the two "merge" votes made no sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to start cleaning up the Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest article, basically removing, flagging or sourcing unsourced material, trimming out historical content that is better covered in Boggs Mountain, and expanding on the creation and history of the forest, including recovery from the Valley Fire. I feel handicapped because the article contains this big lump of material on Forest Lake Resort, which has absolutely nothing to do with the state forest.

Would you care to back out the merge of the Forest Lake Resort material and launch the formal process to merge it into Lake County, California? If not, would you object if I did? I still think the subject is notable and has enough material for a stand-alone article, but I suppose if the title redirects to a section in Lake County, California, all that is lost is the location map – and even that could be added. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have already suggested that you move the content to a more appropriate article if you feel there is one. Therefore, of course I would not object to your doing so. BD2412 T 15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you boldly merged the resort article into Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, which has nothing to do with the resort, I was hoping you would boldly merge it somewhere else. Lake County, California would be a better target since the resort was actually in Lake County. I was more thinking of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, since adding four paragraphs on a defunct resort to the county article may be controversial. I will stay clear of that discussion.

A much better target would be Resorts of Lake County, California, which could discuss in general the evolution from curative mineral springs to family vacation spots to religious retreats, list the resorts and give short descriptions for those that do not have articles. But I am not volunteering to start it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD has a very specific meaning within the context of the project. I did not "boldly" merge anything; I merged content pursuant to a discussion. I have no intention of revisiting the matter. BD2412 T 17:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

But the discussion pointed out that the resort had nothing to do with the forest.:

• "The main source, Hoberg, was published by Arcadia Publishing, not the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and does not mention the state forest. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain and was never part of the state forest."

Surely the merge, if there was to be a merge, should not have been to the state forest. I do not understand the reluctance to correct the mistake. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have said four times in this conversation that you can go ahead and change the merge topic. If you believe the outcome is a mistake, I don't understand your reluctance to correct it. BD2412 T 17:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That merge argument was

• "Both the book sources above are published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection who manage the forest, and as such don't quite fulfill the requirement of "multiple, independent sources". Both sources mention the resort only in the context of the history of the current state forest, and there's no reason why we shouldn't do likewise."

If that had been true, it would have been a valid argument, but it was completely incorrect, as was pointed out. If we discard that vote, we get no consensus for a merge. It becomes a debate between two editors over keep vs. delete based on whether the topic has to be important to be notable. I am quite willing to correct the outcome by restoring the article, if you concur, but not to fight to get acceptance for merging into Lake Valley, California. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If the rationale for merging the content was flawed, we would not "discard that vote", but would count it as a vote to delete, since that editor is still contending that there should not be a separate article on this topic. BD2412 T 18:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor was contending that the article was about the history of the state forest, using sources published by the state forest, so should be merged into the article on the state forest. And that would be valid if true. But the editor had it all mixed up. It was nothing to do with the state forest. Votes have be considered based on how valid their arguments are, and in this case the argument was completely invalid. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

As an aside, I have separated out Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest and Forest Lake Resort, and have made some improvements to both. Wherever Forest Lake Resort ends up, this is the version that should be used. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I merely closed the AfD. What you do with it is not my concern. BD2412 T 18:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

So you have no problem if I restore the article stand-alone? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with you merging the content with another article. You should be aware that for an article on the resort itself to exist, it would have to pass WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG is good enough for this and any article. Surely the "merge to somewhere" decision is discredited, since the argument for that was totally invalid. You are surely not still sticking to that decision? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a consensus in the discussion that this subject does not meet the WP:GNG. If you wish to appeal my close, I'm sure you know the process to do that. BD2412 T 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not see that consensus at all. Seems to me if you toss out the dud merge vote, it was 2-1 that the article did meet GNG. I rarely get into disputes and have never appealed an AfD before, not sure if I can be bothered. The combo Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest + Forest Lake Resort is sort of cute. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Forest Lake Resort

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Forest Lake Resort. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

not notable person

Hello how are you ? can you delete this article Mohamed Omar (digital media personality) Because The article does not have any reliable sources and he is a Normal person, doesn't have any notability ! And secondly, he is a friend of Arabic admin in Arabic Wikipedia and he reviewed his page and it was accepted The user who created the article has also been blocked Please take a look please Stay Safe --Ladyofturkey (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added a PROD tag. If this is deprodded, it will need to go to AfD. BD2412 T 15:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI BD2412, that above user is a global long term abuser, see this category, and please take a look at Mohamed Omar (digital media personality) history. Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 06:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Irrespective of the original post, I do not see notability made out on the face of the article. BD2412 T 16:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

agreed. not likely to be notable DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

AWB version

I just noticed this edit that moved the short description out of place. You must not be using the version with the fix for this. MB 21:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was any newer version of AWB available. Usually, they discontinue the previous version when they initiate a new one. I will upgrade. BD2412 T 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a new released version. But there is a manual download available. It's been discussed on the TP several times. MB 22:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

BBC

@BD2412 Sorry for my edit here [[1]], I am convinced, that it isn't derogatory or racist towards us(the black men) but it is the contrary, thank you. Thank you for having it here at BBC (disambiguation) Appreciate it! :D Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 13:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note - resolved. BD2412 T 17:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Avengers

Hi, could you please look at moving Draft:Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) if you think it is mainspace-ready? Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note - resolved. BD2412 T 17:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Good Article Reassessment

Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. BD2412 T 05:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Dole 1996 campaign spinoff

Did you ever start a draft to spin-off Bob Dole's 1996 campaign into its own article, as you had suggested we should do? SecretName101 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not, but I'm game for it. BD2412 T 05:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I found an article on his campaign's efforts to plan for a potential presidential transition. Something to extraneous to put in the main article on the man, but perfectly relevant for a campaign article. So if you start a draft, let me know, and I'll be glad to add that information to it. SecretName101 (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Grand Army of the Republic members has been nominated for deletion

Category:Grand Army of the Republic members has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed an alternative in the discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Shuri (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

There's been a WP:GOODFAITH misunderstanding here, could you please maybe clarify the situation and see if the article is mainspace-ready as an MCU-specific article? IronManCap (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that this seems to be the same user that declined Draft:Captain America's shield (Marvel Cinematic Universe) which kind of looked ready to me. He don’t always respond with counterarguments much from what I can remember. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian (disambiguation)

Hi. Can you remove the PC from Palestinian (disambiguation)? It won't filter anything as long as the 30-500 is there and probably it will never be removed. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Done, but the page should not have been moved without discussion and consensus in the first place. BD2412 T 03:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals Indian Law : Request for Advice

Hi. Could you guide me as to whether you'd be interested or know anyone who's interested in supporting this proposed WikiProject or generating some support for it becoming a Taskforce under another WikiProject? As far as I see, very few editors seem to be active in this particular domain. Semanticz0 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I will do what I can, but it's outside my field of knowledge. BD2412 T 03:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of DKS for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DKS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The vandalism reverted and the discussion is speedily closed. Please be more aware of circumstances like this before making an AfD nomination. BD2412 T 03:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Moisture management

Hello ​ May I request you to review the subject page. Warm regards RV (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC) It is already done. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Table of plants used as herbs or spices

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Table of plants used as herbs or spices. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tamtrible (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have responded there. BD2412 T 21:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)