text:
History Will Absolve Me

History Will Absolve Me (Spanish: La historia me absolverá) was a two-hour speech made by Fidel Castro on 16 October 1953. Castro made the speech in his own defense in court against the charges brought against him after he led an attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba. The speech later became the manifesto of his 26th of July Movement.

Though sentenced to terms of up to 15 years for their roles in the attack, all of the rebels were released after an amnesty granted by Fulgencio Batista in 1955. Castro relocated to Mexico, before returning to Cuba on the Granma yacht in December 1956.

The speech was secretly printed as a pamphlet by El Curita at Plaza del Vapor which was demolished in 1959 by the Castro government and made into a park named El Curita.

Castro's first court appearance
Castro made his first court appearance on 21 September 1953 in Santiago, as one of around 100 defendants arrested after the Moncada attack. Of these, 65 had in fact not taken part in the operation and included leading politicians — among them the nation′s last democratically elected president, Carlos Prío. Castro, a qualified lawyer, took on his own defense, as did two other defendants. All others were defended by a total of 24 attorneys. Castro based his case on the illegality of the Batista regime and the inherent right of the citizen to rebel against what he perceived to be an illegal government. When asked who was responsible for the attack, Castro replied that "the intellectual author of this revolution is José Martí, the apostle of our independence". Castro also took part in the court′s second hearing on 22 September, but missed day three (25 September) because the regimental chief had wrongly claimed him to be sick. Castro managed to have a handwritten note handed to the judge in court asking for special safeguards for his life that he said was under threat in prison. The court then decided to proceed with the main trial, instructed for the demands in Castro′s letter to be fulfilled and to grant his separate case a new trial at a later date.

31 prisoners were found guilty but most were treated leniently. 19 attackers were acquitted along with the 65 civilians. The only two female participants in the attack, who had not been armed, received sentences of 7 months. Along with three others found to have played a leading role in the attack, Castro's brother Raúl was sentenced to 13 years on what was then called the Isle of Pines.

Castro's speech and sentence
Castro was brought before a different court on 16 October 1953 for sentencing. It was here that he reportedly made his four-hour speech justifying his actions and outlining his plans for Cuba. During the trial, public outrage at the treatment of the prisoners was seriously diminishing Batista's standing among the population. A local judge telephoned Batista's staff to complain that Batista was reviving the brutal era of former president Gerardo Machado, while a Santiago bishop called upon the courts to spare Castro's life and sought support from Cuba's upper class Catholic contingent. Though Castro was sentenced to join his brother in prison for 15 years, the trial elevated him to semi-heroic status on the island.

Castro's speech contained numerous evocations of the "father of Cuban independence" José Martí, whilst depicting Batista as a tyrant. According to Castro, Batista was a "monstrum horrendum ... without entrails" who had committed an act of treachery in 1933 when he initiated a coup to oust Cuban president Ramón Grau. Castro went on to speak of "700,000 Cubans without work", launching an attack on Cuba's extant healthcare and schooling, and asserting that 30% of Cuba's farm people could not even write their own names.

In Castro's published manifesto, based on his 1953 speech, he gave details of the "five revolutionary laws" he wished to see implemented on the island:
 * 1) The reinstatement of the 1940 Cuban constitution.
 * 2) A reformation of land rights.
 * 3) The right of industrial workers to a 30% share of company profits.
 * 4) The right of sugar workers to receive 55% of company profits.
 * 5) The confiscation of holdings of those found guilty of fraud under previous administrative powers.

title: History Will Absolve Me


text:
Trinity Cross

The Trinity Cross (abbreviated T.C. or TC) was the highest of the National Awards of Trinidad and Tobago, between the years 1969 and 2008. It was awarded for: "distinguished and outstanding service to Trinidad and Tobago. It was awarded for gallantry in the face of the enemy, or for gallant conduct." Either nationals or non-nationals were awarded the honour, but no more than five may have been awarded in any year. The President was awarded the Trinity Cross in an ex officio capacity. The award was first presented in 1969, last conferred in 2005, and was subsequently replaced by The Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (abbreviated O.R.T.T.) in the year 2008.

Controversy
The name of the award has been criticised as being discriminatory against non-Christians (since it used the Christian symbol of the cross).

Prime Minister Dr. Eric Williams in 1972 prevailed upon a reluctant Dr. Wahid Ali, then President of the Senate of Trinidad and Tobago, and a Muslim, to wear the Trinity Cross; he agreed to accept it only after the Prime Minister promised to change the name of the award in the future. In 1973, then Roman Catholic Archbishop Anthony Pantin declined to go on record in favour of renaming the award, but allowed that he lacked "any strong feelings one way or the other."

In 1995 the Dharmacharya (spiritual head of the Hindu organization, Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha) Pandit Krishna Maharaj, refused to accept the Trinity Cross from Prime Minister Patrick Manning, for his social work on the grounds that it did not represent a true national award involving all religious denominations of Trinidad and Tobago.

In 1997, a cabinet appointed committee was appointed to look at the issue of the Trinity Cross. The committee was chaired by the then Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Michael de la Bastide; recommendations included encouragement of public consultation on the matter, and the suggestion that "The Order of Trinidad & Tobago" should be considered as "the Trinity Cross...was perceived as a Christian symbol" in this multi-religious society.

In June 2005, High Court Action 2065 of 2004 was heard before Mr. Justice Jamadar in the San Fernando High Court. This was a constitutional motion filed by Satnarayan Maharaj (aka Sat Maharaj), secretary general of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, and Inshan Ishmael, president of the Islamic Relief Centre of Trinidad and Tobago. The applicants in the case had challenged the constitutionality of the Trinity Cross on the grounds that its continued existence and award were in breach of the applicants' fundamental rights as guaranteed by certain Sections of the Constitution. UK based John Horan, Anand Ramlogan and Sir Fenton Ramsahoye, attorneys for the applicants, argued that the State kept the Trinity Cross, knowing that "non-Christians are unable and unwilling to accept (it) because it is perceived to be and/or in fact is a Christian symbol." The result is an experience of disparate treatment, or unfair discrimination, for "many deserving non-Christian citizens who...will never be rewarded by the State and country."

In May 2006, Mr. Justice Jamadar, an ordained Presbyterian minister, ruled that "the Trinity Cross – the nation's highest award – is strictly a Christian symbol, and as a result, it discriminates in a multi-religious society.... In my opinion, leaving aside the savings clause argument for the moment, the respondent has shown no accommodation whatsoever to ameliorate the indirect adverse discriminating effects of the award of the Trinity Cross on the applicants as Hindus and Muslims and as corporate citizens representing Hindus and Muslims in T&T." Although he found it to be discriminatory, he said that it does not mean that the court can strike it down. As it was protected by the 1976 Constitution, it was a matter for the Parliament to change.

Prime Minister Patrick Manning said in Parliament on 2 June 2006, that the Trinity Cross "will pass into history and this year's National Awards will be conducted on the basis of new and more acceptable arrangements." Manning added that his Cabinet has established a committee, led by UWI history professor Bridget Brereton, to review all aspects of the nation’s highest award and also to examine "such other national symbols and observances which may be considered discriminatory." This led to the creation of a new replacement highest award the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, which was first presented in 2008.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Trinity Cross


text:
ActiveSync

ActiveSync is a mobile data synchronization app developed by Microsoft, originally released in 1996. It synchronizes data with handheld devices and desktop computers.

Overview
ActiveSync allows a mobile device to be synchronized with either a desktop PC or a server running a compatible software product.

On desktops, ActiveSync synchronizes emails, calendar, contacts and tasks with Microsoft Outlook, along with Internet bookmarks and files. ActiveSync does not support all features of Outlook. For instance, contacts grouped into subfolders are not transferred. Only the contacts which are not in a subfolder are synchronized. In case of Exchange Server, only emails, calendar, contacts and tasks may be synchronized.

In the Windows Task Manager, the associated process is called wcescomm.exe.

ActiveSync also provides for the manual transfer of files to a mobile device, along with limited backup functionality, and the ability to install and uninstall mobile device applications.

Supported mobile devices include PDAs or smartphones running Windows Mobile, Windows CE, BlackBerry 10 or iOS but not the older BlackBerry versions, Palm OS and Symbian platforms. Windows Phone 7 doesn't support desktop ActiveSync synchronization.

Starting with Windows Vista, ActiveSync has been replaced with the Windows Mobile Device Center, which is included as part of the operating system.

title: ActiveSync


text:
Talk:Terra incognita

[Untitled]
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Terra Incognita. dbenbenn | talk 20:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I remember a map on the wall of the in a room of Palazzo Ducale in Venice with the indication "Terra incognita hic sunt dracones". I am not writing it in the article because it is some years now. Someone please confirm. --FocalPoint 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rationalising Terra, Australis, Ignota, and Incognita
Thanks to Vsmith and Dougweller for fixing a mess I found here, which I unfortunately made worse by in trying to fix it. The articles involved are these:

 * Terra Australis
 * Terra Australis Incognita
 * Terra Australis Ignota
 * Terra incognita
 * Terra ignota
 * Talkpages for each of the above

I have replaced the lead of Terra Australis with the following summation, including a link to comprehensive history of terms at Australia:

"Terra Australis (or Terra Australis Ignota and Terra Australis Incognita; Latin: 'the unknown land of the South') was a hypothetical continent appearing on European maps from the 15th to the 18th century. Other names for the continent include Magallanica or Magellanica ('the land of Magellan'), La Australia del Espíritu Santo (Spanish: 'the southern land of the Holy Spirit'), and La grande isle de Java (French: 'the great island of Java'). Terra Australis was one of several names applied to the actual continent of Australia, after its European discovery; and it is the inspiration for the continent's modern name (see also Etymology, at Australia)."

As things stand, there are links and redirects among those pages. These may need discussion and rectifying, along with suitable changes to the pages themselves. In particular the talkpages are problematic: if a talkpage is moved (and then possibly re-moved), redirected, etc., it can become unclear precisely which page is under discussion, or which is referred to in templated page-headers.

Ignota and incognita mean roughly the same in Latin, but are perhaps distinguishable: ignota "unknown"; incognita "unrecognised, undiscovered, un-learned-about". Non-English-speaking speakers, especially Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, appear to favour ignota over incognita. I suspect there are two reasons for this:
 * The phrase terra ignota famously occurs in Vergil (less known in the English-speaking world), in a context having nothing to do with any southern continent (Heu, terra ignota canibus date praeda Latinis alitibusque iaces! "You lie in a strange land, given as prey to the dogs and fowls of Latium!" parsed here, but with uninformative gloss for ignota).
 * The word ignota is closer to forms in those modern European languages than it is to forms in English.

But in the literature (surveyed through properly conducted searches in Googlebooks and other sources), Terra [Australis] Incognita is overwhelming more common: even in old sources, and especially in English-language sources.

I strongly advise that centralised discussion be conducted at Talk:Australia, and briefly noted at affected pages, to keep all of this in good order. I have placed this discussion there as well.

– ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Terra incognita


text:
Discourse on Metaphysics

The Discourse on Metaphysics (Discours de métaphysique, 1686) is a short treatise by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in which he develops a philosophy concerning physical substance, motion and resistance of bodies, and God's role within the universe. It is one of the few texts presenting in a consistent form the earlier philosophy of Leibniz.

The Discourse is closely connected to the epistolary discussion which he carried with Antoine Arnauld. However Leibniz refrained from sending the full text and it remained unpublished until the mid 19th century. Arnauld received only an abridged version in 37 points which resumed whole paragraphs and steered their discussion.

Contents
Source:

§ 1. On Divine Perfection, and That God Does Everything in the Most Desirable Way. § 2. Against Those Who Claim That There Is No Goodness in God's Works, or That the Rules of Goodness and Beauty Are Arbitrary. § 3. Against Those Who Believe That God Might Have Made Things Better. § 4. That the Love of God Requires Our Complete Satisfaction and Acquiescence with Respect to What He Has Done without Our Being Quietists as a Result. § 5. What the Rules of the Perfection of Divine Conduct Consist in, and That the Simplicity of the Ways Is in Balance with the Richness of the Effects. § 6. God Does Nothing Which Is Not Orderly and It Is Not Even Possible to Imagine Events That Are Not Regular. § 7. That Miracles Conform to the General Order, Even Though They May Be Contra?), to the Subordinate Maxims; and about What God Wills or Permits by a General or Particular Volition. § 8. To Distinguish the Actions of God from Those of Creatures We Explain the Notion of an Individual Substance. § 9. That Each Singular Substance Expresses the Whole Universe in Its Own Way, and That All Its Events, Together with All Their Circumstances and the Whole Sequence of External Things, Are Included in Its Notion. § 10. That the Belief in Substantial Forms Has Some Basis, but That These Forms Do Not Change Anything in the Phenomena and Must Not Be Used to Explain Particular Effects. § 11. That the Thoughts of the Theologians and Philosophers Who Are Called Scholastics Are Not Entirely to Be Disdained. § 12. That the Notions Involved in Extension Contain Something Imaginary and Cannot Constitute the Substance of Body. § 13. Since the Individual Notion of Each Person Includes Once and for All Everything That Will Ever Happen to Him, One Sees in It the A Priori Proofs of the Truth of Each Event, or, Why One Happened Rather Than Another. But These Truths, However Certain, Are Nevertheless Contingent, Being Based on the Free Will of God or of His Creatures, Whose Choice Always Has Its Reasons, Which Incline without Necessitating. § 14. God Produces Various Substances According to the Different Views He Has of the Universe, and through God's Intervention the Proper Nature of Each Substance Brings It about That What Happens to One Corresponds with What Happens to All the Others, without Their Acting upon One Another Directly. § 15. The Action of One Finite Substance on Another Consists Only in the Increase of Degree of its Expression Together with the Diminution of the Expression of the Other, Insofar as God Requires Them to Accommodate Themselves to One Another. § 16. God's Extraordinary Concourse Is Included in That Which Our Essence Expresses, for This Expression Extends to Everything. But This Concourse Surpasses the Powers of Our Nature or of Our Distinct Expression, Which Is Finite and Follows Certain Subordinate Maxims. § 17. An Example of a Subordinate Maxim or Law of Nature; in Which It Is Shown, against the Cartesians and Many Others, That God Always Conserves the Same Force but Not the Same Quantity of Motion. § 18. The Distinction between Force and Quantity of Motion Is Important, among Other Reasons, for Judging That One Must Have Recourse to Metaphysical Considerations Distinct from Extension in Order to Explain the Phenomena of Bodies. § 19. The Utility of Final Causes in Physics. § 20. A Noteworthy Passage by Socrates in Plato against the Philosophers Who Are Overly Materialistic. § 21. If Mechanical Rules Depended Only on Geometry without Metaphysics, the Phenomena Would Be Entirely Different. § 22. Reconciliation of Two Ways of Explaining Things, by Final Causes and by Efficient Causes, in Order to Satisfy Both Those Who Explain Nature Mechanically and Those Who Have Recourse to Incorporeal Natures. § 23. To Return to Immaterial Substances, We Explain How God Acts on the Understanding of Minds and Whether We Always Have the Idea of That About Which We Think. § 24. What Is Clear or Obscure, Distinct or Confused, Adequate and Intuitive or Suppositive Knowledge; Nominal, Real, Causal, and Essential Definition. § 25. In What Case Our Knowledge Is Joined to the Contemplation of the Idea. § 26. That We Have All Ideas in Us; and of Plato's Doctrine of Reminiscence. § 27. How Our Soul Can Be Compared to Empty Tablets and How Our Notions Come from the Senses. § 28. God Alone Is the Immediate Object of Our Perceptions, Which Exist Outside of Us, and He Alone Is Our Light. § 29. Yet We Think Immediately through Our Own Ideas and Not through Those of God. § 30. How God Inclines Our Soul without Necessitating It; That We Do Not Have the Right to Complain and That We Must Not Ask Why Judas Sins but Only Why Judas the Sinner Is Admitted to Existence in Preference to Some Other Possible Persons. On Original Imperfection before Sin and on the Degrees of Grace § 31. On the Motives of Election, on Faith Foreseen, on Middle Knowledge, on the Absolute Decree and That It All Reduces to the Reason Why God Has Chosen for Existence Such a Possible Person Whose Notion Includes Just Such a Sequence of Graces and Free Acts; This Puts an End to All Difficulties at Once. § 32. The Utility of These Principles in Matters of Piety and Religion. § 33. Explanation of the Union of Soul and Body, a Matter Which Has Been Considered as Inexplicable or Miraculous, and on the Origin of Confused Perceptions. § 34. On the Difference between Minds and Other Substances, Souls or Substantial Forms, and That the Immortality Required Includes Memory. § 35. The Excellence of Minds and That God Considers Them Preferable to Other Creatures. That Minds Express God Rather Than the World, but That the Other Substances Express the World Rather Than God. § 36. God Is the Monarch of the Most Perfect Republic, Composed of All Minds, and the Happiness of This City of God Is His Principal Purpose. § 37. Jesus Christ Has Revealed to Men the Mystery and Admirable Laws of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Greatness of the Supreme Happiness That God Prepares for Those Who Love Him.

Summary
The metaphysical considerations proceed from God to the substantial world and back to the spiritual realm. The starting point for the work is the conception of God as an absolutely perfect being (I), that God is good but goodness exists independently of God (a rejection of divine command theory) (II), and that God has created the world in an ordered and perfect fashion (III–VII).

At the time of its writing Discourse made the controversial claim That the opinions of... scholastic philosophers are not to be wholly despised (XI). Early work in modern philosophy during the 17th century were based on a rejection of many of the precepts of medieval philosophy. Leibniz saw the failures of scholasticism merely as one of rigor. [If] some careful and meditative mind were to take the trouble to clarify and direct their thoughts in the manner of analytic geometers, he would find a great treasure of important truths, wholly demonstrable.

Leibniz claimed that God's omnipotence was in no way impugned by the thought of evil, but was rather solidified. He endorsed the view that God chose the best of all possible worlds. In other words, Leibniz believed this world (or reality) to be the best there possibly could be — taking all facts into account, no better world could be imagined, even if we believed that we could think of something more perfect.

Leibniz's conception of physical substance is expanded upon in The Monadology and Principles of Nature and Grace.

title: Discourse on Metaphysics


text:
John Fillmore Hayford

John Fillmore Hayford (May 19, 1868 – March 10, 1925) was an eminent United States geodesist. His work involved the study of isostasy and the construction of a reference ellipsoid for approximating the figure of the Earth. Hayford was elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in 1911 and the American Philosophical Society in 1915. The crater Hayford on the far side of the Moon is named after him. Mount Hayford, a 1,871 m mountain peak near Metlakatla, Alaska, United States, is named after him. A biography of Hayford may be found in the Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 16 (5), 1935.

title: John Fillmore Hayford


text:
User:Carbonbase

For further contact:

oqpied[at]gmail[dot]com

title: User:Carbonbase


text:
User:BD2412/Archive 039

{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px"
 * class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #cef2e0; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landship
Articles for deletion/Landship may have a consensus, if you wish to close it out. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers! BD2412  T 17:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Maito Santos
User:Miraclepine has asked for a deletion review of Maito Santos. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 10:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And XNXX, on Deletion review/Log/2020 January 8. —Cryptic 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

AFD review
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 in archosaur paleontology as Keep borderline WP:SNOW. I believe that the arguments advanced and the closing decision were flawed in their logic and in the application of WP policies and guidelines. Is there a formal process when decisions on AfDs can be re-examined by uninvolved participants to determine the correctness, or otherwise of the decision? Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 00:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the discussions closed as keep are discussed at Deletion review just like those closed as delete. Cheers! BD2412  T 00:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that. I was just in the process of striking out my request having read the previous discussion but your quick response caused an edit conflict. The review of deletion process asks that I inform you, as the closing admin, of my decision to submit the AfD for review. Please take this thread as that notification, the formal link will come later. It may take me a few days to marshal the arguments before making the submission. I am several thousand miles from home and working on unfamiliar hardware and I realise that my arguments need to be policy based, succinct and logical and these requirements take some careful research. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am overcoming the flu, and have no great capacity to participate in such a discussion now anyway. Thanks. BD2412  T 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Adrian G. Duplantier
Hey,

I don't know if you have a way of looking into this or not, but I noticed an article for a district judge has been deleted for copyright issues, Adrian G. Duplantier. I don't know who the original editor/creator was but I was thinking about re-creating it, but didn't want to run into the same copyright issues, whatever those were. Any thoughts? Snickers2686 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, the original creator was User:Billy Hathorn. I have restored the article with only non-copyvio material. BD2412  T 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied there, thanks. BD2412  T 02:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I could use your help again
Thanks for your edit here. Since "child sex abuser" is a formal term used by governments on both sides of the Atlantic and "convicted p..." is an utterly flawed tabloid phrase that sees multiple Wikipedia articles falsely report how innumerable people were jailed for having a psychiatric disorder, perhaps you would consider undoing the edits of User:Deacon Vorbis, who is now reverting all the corrections I've made over the last hour or so. Other users have explicitly supported my corrections. Thanks. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like an issue to address through a community process. BD2412  T 04:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Transwiki
Thanks for closing and moving Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of islands. There was also Articles for deletion/List of English exonyms for Italian toponyms and a couple other AFD that would have the same result if it's appropriate for all of these place translation pages to be on Wiktionary. I had just prodded List of English exonyms for Arabic-speaking places before I noticed the transwiki, though List of French exonyms for Italian toponyms and others have been tagged with Template:Copy to Wiktionary. However, it appears per Category:Copy to Wiktionary that this automatic process has ceased. What would be the appropriate process to have this carried out for these pages? wikt:Help:Transwiki is dead so I can't quite tell how to import (if I can). Thanks! Reywas92Talk 02:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can do these. Cheers! BD2412  T 02:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks – there's actually quite a few of these at Category:Lists of exonyms. Reywas92Talk 09:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun. BD2412  T 15:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:MFD Closed discussion for User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist
In the collapsed box on the main WP:MFD page, at the very bottom of the screen, the collapsed box is titled Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canada despite it being for the above userbox MfD, and I can't figure out where the page is that is referencing that collapsed box to fix it. It should be a link the MfD, not Portal:Canada. Any idea?

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  03:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did that once before. It should be fixed now. BD2412  T 03:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, yep, all good. No worries. Doug Mehus T · C  03:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

note re portals
thanks for your comments on portals. it looks like for some reason, some of these old issues are re-appearing for no apparent reason. I appreciate your positive statements in support of applying some logic in favor of strengthening portals as a group. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll get there. We're on the right track. BD2412  T 11:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Whimbrel disambiguation
You have correctly disambiguated Whimbrel in the western hemisphere bird lists. However, you also changed the specific epithet. Because the cited authorities for those lists' taxonomies (mostly American Ornithological Society, some Clements) have not split the species, the specific epithet should have been kept as phaeopus. Please restore. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that can possibly be right. I'll change them back, but it seems damned odd. BD2412  T 02:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The several taxonomic authorities operate on different schedules and to a degree different philosophies. AOS is pretty conservative; they don't spit as much as Gill and Donsker (IOC). The AOS North American committee announces changes in July or early August and the South American one on an irregular basis. Clements is less conservative, but still not as split-happy as IOC; they also do an annual announcement, usually in July. Craigthebirder (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: United States v. Sisson has been accepted
 United States v. Sisson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.  DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I accepted this as a stub, although it really needs expansion, both in terms of the rather complex situation in the case, the historical relevance, and whether further cases have referred to it.
 * , I did not submit this, and would not have considered it ready for submission. BD2412  T 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The alternative would have been deletion as a G13, which I prevented. Even as is, it passes the criterion, which is that it would not be deleted at afd. I do not think we have ever deleted a modern US Supreme Court case.  DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a middle ground of making an edit to the draft to extend it for another six months, but this isn't terrible. BD2412  T 00:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Note re workspace talk page
I appreciate all your help at the page User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. I think that at this point, the last section "one closing thought," is simply detracting from the general readability of the page, since it is simply a discussion of my own recent edits, which have been reverted, as you know. So therefore, may I please suggest that we create an "archive" page for that page, and then move that section into there? I think that doing so would be appreciated by all the editors there. I would suggest to leave that section there for one day, a brief time period, just to allow greater transparency and to let others see it, if they wish, and then move it to an archive. I don't think it is helpful to the general readability of the page; I fully admit my own role in initiating that section, but at this point we can safely retire it. I have already added this suggestion, in that sub-section.

I hope that's okay? Please feel free to let me know your preference. I do appreciate your helpful feedback; your constructive criticisms are something I will note. Please ping me when you reply. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. Cheers! BD2412  T 16:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * that's terrific. thanks for your reply. Cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now an editor there has left a personal comment there at the bottom of the talk page. It is their right to do so, but I'd prefer that it wasn't there. the answer to improper editing practices, is not further improper editing. is this supposed to open a new sub-topic? I had archived that section, precisely to allow discussion there to return to the page's core topics. it is preferable if we get back to the actual topics of that page. I am just letting you know. I am here if you need me, but otherwise, i will simply let the world to keep rolling along. I appreciate your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, I have condensed a past comment of mine there by a large amount, in order to meet them halfway, and avoid any possible pitfalls of one editor, even myself, appearing to add too much a specific discussion thread there. I appreciate your help, guidance, and input. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * just letting you know, I plan to step back from editing that page for some period of time, in order to watch the discussion as we receive input and insights from other editors, and hopefully get some cross-section of views of those who have been participating there. I'm assuming the discussion there will resume its focus on the core topics of that page. I really appreciate all your help there. it is good to have your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk)

Proposed deletion of Raymond Plouhar

The article Raymond Plouhar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fails WP:BLP1E. Everyone dies....that certainly doesn't contribute to his notability. Being in the Marines is not notable. The ONLY thing about this guy is his appearance in the movie."

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 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 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. John from Idegon (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed this to a merge proposal, as the subject is sufficiently noteworthy to merit some mention in Fahrenheit 9/11. BD2412  T 23:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I came within an nth of just boldly redirecting. And I'd certainly not object to you doing it yourself. John from Idegon (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the information, or at least a summary of it, actually be merged. There are aspects that are directly relevant to the film. BD2412  T 00:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now merged this content to Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies. Cheers! BD2412  T 20:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Note re your user page
Hey, I just took a look at your user page. wow! thanks so much for posting the informative links to let us know about your long-standing efforts here. I'm still reading through the data that you provided. but thanks so much for your efforts. I am starting with list of most active wikipedians, and then exploring other items after that. thanks for all the info. cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to say, thanks. BD2412  T 23:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * no problem!!--Sm8900 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Note re article
Hi. I need your help over at User_talk:Scottywong/Portal_guideline_workspace. if you see the last comment by SmokeyJoe there, they seem to keep bringing up my name there. I would like any discussion that refers to me personally to come to some conclusion, so that we can move on, and resume discussing the core topics at that page. it seems like anything that I do there to try to resume or return things to normal only gives them another reason to bring up my user name again. so I don't wish to comment there just to keep renewing this topic.

Just to clarify, I am not comfortable with any further discussion that mentions me by name. I'm not objecting to it as a general rule; rather I am simply saying I would like to see the discussions there simply move on and get back to the core topics.

Any comment that I make there to bring this topic to a close would apparently have the opposite effect. You, on the other hand, are highly credible and have lots of substance and expertise as an editor. So I'd like to ask that you please simply do whatever you wish there to bring this topic to a close.

by the way, please note, I am not asking for any rebuttal for any of the comments there. I am simply asking for this topic to ccome to a close, so that we can simply move on. any personal comments there are something that I am not comfortable with at this point. I'm perfectly willing to engage and reply constructively to any inquiry or any coomment that anyone wishes to make. I simply feel that in regards to this specific topic, we can simply conclude it and move on.

So if you could please make whatever brief comment you might wish to simply get the discussion there back on the core topics, I would greatly appreciate it. please note, you are welcome to ask me for any actions, approach, comment, or any other steps that you might wish me because you feel it is proper for me to do so. I am totally open to any such input. I am not trying to request any particular outcome there; I am simply asking for this subject to be closed, so that we can move on.

can you please assist? I would greatly appreciate it. again let me know any actions steps or comments that you need from me. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you intend to withdraw from further activity on that page, I would suggest that you succinctly let that be known, and that will likely be the end of the conversation. BD2412  T 02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply!!! well, I can't say that there; because if I do say that, then if I make even a minor comment later, that will only raise a whole other issue. I am indeed planning to step back from editing that page for a while, but I wasn't planning to just stop commenting, or to never comment there ever again.
 * by the way I was planning to simply reply there simply by saying "point taken. good point." I don't mind saying whatever would be constructive. my only concern was that if every reply of mine simply raises up issues again, or stirs things up no matter how low-key then I might wish to request your input. however, I'm fine if you simply want to watch the discussion there, and see what happens. I will trust your ability and experience to take the right action, based on whatever will be most positive and beneficial for the discussions as a whole. I appreciate your reply. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be an industrious editor. I'm sure that with some reflection, you will figure out how extricate yourself from the situation appropriately. BD2412  T 02:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * true enough. well, that sounds fine. no problem, will get this resolved. it's good to be able to be in touch periodically. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

question re talk page item
Hi. someone reverted my edit on a 'talk page.' are they allowed to do that? my comment was totally innocuous, as far as I can tell. if there's something that was wrong with my comment, then I am totally open to your feedback. could you please let me know? the change was at this diff: link to diff. I appreciate any input. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Their next edit was a self-revert, indicating that they reverted you by accident. BD2412  T 04:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * oh ok. lol I guess I missed that. sorry to have bothered you!! I'm very grateful though for how approachable you have been with ordinary inquiries and requests for assistance. I look forward to discussions with you about some other stuff that I have been considering. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all good. BD2412  T 04:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace
Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You are one of the most active editor/admins here, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.

 * Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
 * If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
 * Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
 * Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
 * WIkiProject Town Hall,
 * WikiProject Bulletin Board,
 * WikiProject Water Cooler
 * Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
 * Town Hall or
 * Water Cooler
 * Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
 * Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as WikiProject History/Town Hall

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that the existing collaborative workspaces are sufficient. It would be better to put this energy into revitalizing existing WikiProjects. BD2412  T 05:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ok. which existing collaborative workspaces are you referring to? I am open to all opinions on this. however, I am simply just want to clarify, as I'm not sure if we have an existing workspace where coordinators of the most active WIkiProjects provide current updates on a regular periodic basis. could you please let me know which places you mean? I do highly appreciate your willingness to help and to reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * hi! by the way, we are discussing this now as a proposal, at the following location. your input would be welcome there. thanks. link: Village_pump_(proposals). --Sm8900 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * By existing workspaces, I mean the various subpages of Village pump. I tend to prefer improvements to the implementation of existing spaces over the creation of new ones, which can briefly be attractive as a shiny bauble, but then are just as quickly forgotten. BD2412  T 22:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorshe Ilish
Hello, I saw you edited Sorshe Ilish, this jingoistic editor for Bangladesh again changed the place of origin to Bangladesh, instead of Bengal. This was even stated by User:Huon here in talk. It is clearly a Bengali dish, however, this user Za-ari-masen on multiple article is changing Bengali dishes to Bangladeshi dishes. Others are Chomchom, Bakarkhani, as well as articles such as Kazi Nazrul Islam and Gauḍa (city), which are not justified. These reversals are just Bangladeshi jingoism. All these are shares by both Bangladesh and India. As noted on the talk page, but the user Za-ari-masen comes back and changes it. (2600:1001:B003:5C82:61D3:209D:CA6E:5364 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC))
 * I only fixed disambiguation links on the page. I have no knowledge of the area, and am unable to address it further. BD2412  T 12:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

just saw your note
Hi. I just saw your note re the drafts left by our fellow editor, colleague, and valued and cherished creative contributor to Wikipedia, user:Brianboulton. I admire your effort to put some value on the works of this individual who left such a rich legacy.

I would like you to please look at my contribs to his user space, and let me know if you are okay with my edits. I have created a page User:Brianboulton/drafts to list these drafts. then I would like to rename each numbered sandbox, using the title at the top of each one, and make them a subpage of the drafts page. there will be a list there, that anyone can easily read.

would you like to go there, and take a look at what I set up? I really appreciate your heartfelt efforts on this, on behalf of a cherished member of our community, who clearly had genuine erudition and intellectual creativity. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point I am going to ask that you cease leaving messages on my talk page—at least for a few days—as I am finding your communications to be excessive to the point of being uncomfortable, and a bit stalkerish. BD2412  T 04:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * no problem, will do so, and will respect your wishes to the fullest extent. I apologize if I over-stepped. no problem, will tone it down as you request, for a reasonable period of time. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Mohamed Hassan
Could you tag as R from ambiguous term, please? You were the protecting admin. Narky Blert (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers! BD2412  T 00:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians
Hi there. I saw this page today and wondered about adding someone to it. User:CCShade passed away several years ago now. He only had a few hundred edits, but I guess that is a lot more than many people ever get? He was mostly here to work on the very same D&D monster articles that have inspired a lot of ire of late. I wrote this about him after he died, and after talking to his wife: The links to his online obits don't appear to work anymore, but I found new links:       I'm not sure how I would go about adding something for him, or if I even should, but I kind of want to. Any suggestions? BOZ (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would assume that any confirmed deceased Wikipedian should be documented, although I have never been on the documenting end of the process. BD2412  T 03:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, thanks. I will give it some thought on how to proceed. :) BOZ (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A stalker writes: see Deceased Wikipedians for guidance. Narky Blert (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Dekimasu
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Dekimasu. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects

 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Dick (slang)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Dick (slang). Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Dick (slang) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be resolved. Thanks. BD2412  T 02:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RfA-nom
Template:RfA-nom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Interstellarity (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replied there, thanks. BD2412  T 20:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Revival request of K. Surendran (politician)
Dear,User:BD2412 I think there is an AFD war going on Wikipedia.

K Surendran has been aapointed as the state president of Bharatiya Janata Party

 * Here

 * here

This AFD discussion has been formed due to A political rivalry of a Some team.There is many significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which prove the notability of. K. Surendran (politician) ,it is clear.But now the page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted. We humbly request you, Please revive this deleted Page or can u move it to a draft space..?? Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  13:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the reason for the formation of the AfD discussion, the article was deleted pursuant to a consensus of trusted and experienced editors. I have refunded the article to Draft:K. Surendran (politician), and I have move-protected the page, so that administrative review will be required to restore it to mainspace. You may work on the article in draft space and submit it to mainspace when the deficiencies identified in the deletion discussion have been resolved. BD2412  T 14:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Can you refund the talk page as well? It may have nothing on it but I tend to think a article page and it talk page /subpages are conected and should stay together when possible through thick and thin. -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  14:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. BD2412  T 17:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested Moves
Hi sir. Do you mind helping me with this? I've not done this before and this is a rather large discussion over quite a few pages. Thank you for your time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Have I filed this correctly? Thank you. I added the contested template. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it, cheers! BD2412  T 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Move Request of Draft:K. Surendran (politician)
Hi ,Greetings....

Unfortunately, the day of he became as the state president (15-02-2020) his page was deleted  through the AFD.It was an interesting ☺☺

These are some of the most important news article in last few days,that followed easily prove his notability.You can check the news and date to make it sure my arguments.

 * E-paper from janmabhumi daily newspaper

 * Ndtv (national media)

 * The Hindu (National newspaper)

 * timesofindia/indiatimes.(National newspaper)

 * National news

 * mathrubhumi news

 * Manorama news

 * keralakaumudidaily newspaper

 * deshabhimani daily newspaper

 * deccanherald

These reliable sources are solved specific concerns of editors who supported deletion discussion.

Therefore, I request you to Please move this Draft:K. Surendran (politician) article to the main space Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  08:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am sure neither BD2412 or any of the AfD participants were aware of the about to happen future incident, So it is wrong to claim some link. That said even if this news had come before the AfD closure, I dont think it would have made any difference to the decision at AfD. The state presidents of the party are not inherently notable. However if the subject wins a state of national election then he passes WP:NPOL and can get his wiki page. I see that you are working to improve the draft. You may continue your efforts but when you are done, please discuss this again with the AfD participants before deciding to move the page back to mainspace. regards  D Big X ray ᗙ  11:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, He was appointed as the same day when afd closed.When I came to edit the article, I saw it had been deleted a few hours ago So I couldn't pointout these sources there.I believe that a well experienced editor like you will review these reliable sources with neutrality.Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have reviewed all these sources with neutrality. They are all about his appointment to a non notable post. had he been appointed as the national president of BJP, then he might have merited an article. state presidents of a party do not get this benefit. I am moving this to the draft talk page for the benefit of the page reviewers. Please continue there.  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

dab edit
You did some cleanup here, but missed the ending period :) But shouldn't this statement just be removed as unsourced? There is an objection on the talkpage about the claim that it is Arabic also. MB 04:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a script that fixes missing spaces after commas (or extraneous spaces before commas). I generally don't look at anything else on the page except the specific issue being fixed. Sometimes I catch something like that, but the entire point of the script is to fix large numbers of punctuation spacing errors quickly. BD2412  T 04:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Senator O'Neil
I created Lottie Holman O'Neill, so I was notified when you created Senator O'Neil. How did you track down all the names? Did you look through lists of senators from each state, or do a "~" search? Just curious. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I used AWB to make a master list of all people in categories for federal and state senators in the U.S., and then Microsoft Excel to sort out those with duplicate last names. BD2412  T 13:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Congrats on 15 years!!! 15 year society should come calling soon!!!  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  00:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Heeey, pizza! BD2412  T 01:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I actually have one of those from Wikimania. I can't remember which one. BD2412  T 01:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fifteen years a Wikipedian. Plus, I just passed the 1,500,000 edit threshold this month. BD2412  T 02:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for inviting me to the discussion, I do appreciate it, but right now it seems there is far more closed-mindedness than open-mindedness in my favorite topic area, and I have of late come to realize that I am a bit of a wiki-dinosaur whose time has passed. Not that this has changed my outlook in terms of what the encyclopedia should be able to keep, but I doubt that I can add much of anything substantive to a discussion like that, as a result. I appreciate you trying, all the same, and if there is anything I can do to help in your efforts I would like to help. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We all do what we can, my friend. BD2412  T 04:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for unused redirect Love, Victor to make room for Love, Victor (TV series)
Hey BD2412,

The Disney+ Love, Simon tv series has been renamed to "Love, Victor" and since that's taken by a redirect, I've moved it to Love, Victor (TV series). However, upon looking at WhatLinksHere, it looks like "Love, Victor" has never been used as a link for Victor Love. So, it's basically an unused redirect. I'm worried it's going to cause a lot of confusion because someone has already linked to it today accidentally while trying to link to the TV show.

Since you created the redirect, I wanted to check with you first if you oppose requesting for a speedy deletion so that we can move the TV series there (without the need for disambiguation). Or even better, if you're ok with the replacement and since you're an admin... would you please proceed with the speedy deletion and move Love, Victor (TV series) -> Love, Victor. Thanks. — Starforce13  23:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, cheers! BD2412  T 02:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!!— Starforce13  02:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

mistake
Hi. I think you made a mistake in Consciousness (Graham S. Hill book). The author is Christopher S. Hill. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I was going by the proposal made at the end of the discussion now at Talk:Consciousness (Hill book). BD2412  T 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Many thanks, I'll wear the badge with honor. BD2412  T 19:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Orc (Dungeons & Dragons)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Orc (Dungeons &. Since you had some involvement with the Orc (Dungeons & Dragons) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replied there, thanks. BD2412  T 19:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Strauder v. West Virginia
I have added a lot of detail to this page over the past year. Would you give it a look and point out any ways you might see to improve it further? Thanks. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I will look at it this evening. BD2412  T 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee,  C Thomas3   (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sour Grapes

Hello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sour Grapes".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sentencing reform

Hello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sentencing reform".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

AfD
Articles for deletion/Davalenco - You made the right call. I was approached by someone at contract hiring website who wanted to pay me money to vote Keep in this debate. The Keeps are suspect there and everywhere. -- Green  C  13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. BD2412  T 01:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Request
Hi , Now This Draft:K. Surendran (politician) was expanded to meet all Wikipedia criteria..!!

I Request you to move this article to main space by reviewing all sources.This article deserves a main space.This WP:AFD was formed due to a clearly political rivalry.Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  15:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As previously noted, this will be contingent on the opinion of editors who supported deletion of the article in the discussion at Articles for deletion/K. Surendran (politician) (2nd nomination). Even if one of those editors is no longer here, User:Johnpacklambert, User:GPL93, and User:Bearian are still available to comment. BD2412  T 17:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support my previous deletion vote. Also it should be noted that was not "expelled" or even faced any disciplinary action from Wikipedia, but chose retire due online harassment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,This article has over fifty sources,There are over 100 sources outside of it and This is a magazine that came out about him in this week.I still don't understand. on what grounds argue that he fails to WP:GNG..??

 * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage WP:NPOL.are you saying that this criterion does not apply to him...?

 * WP:POLOUTCOMES that this does not apply to him.

 * Or is it WP: IDONTLIKE..?? I request you take a neutral decision on this case Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  19:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My role in this process is no make a neutral decision determining the consensus of the community, which does not appear to have shifted at this time. BD2412  T 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no COI nor any horse in this race. I do not favor the re-creation on main space at this time, per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know that every person has different criteria.Nothing happens here except my time is waste so I don't want to stay here anymore.Thank you all-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  07:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Now at Deletion review/Log/2020 March 13. —Cryptic 12:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Washington Democratic primary
Recently you made an edit updating the voting count numbers, thanks for that! However you wrote "as of March 11, 10:00pm PDT" which is almost 3 hours from now (in the future). What is the time supposed to be? I don't know the correct time otherwise I'd fix it myself. -kotra (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was 10:00 PM EST. I guess that's 7:00 PM PST. BD2412  T 03:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, easy mistake to make. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! This actually served as a good reminder of something at the right moment. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Every Which Way but Loose/temp
Thanks for closing the RM, but looks like you accidentally left Talk:Every Which Way but Loose/temp behind. Not a big deal, just letting you know. Station1 (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! BD2412  T 12:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding AfD
Hi BD2412, I have proposed this article for deletion, but there is no response from Wikipedian's can you please go through it once, Thanks. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion appears to be proceeding normally. Cheers! BD2412  T 14:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

title: User:BD2412/Archive 039


text:
Joey Slotnick

Joseph Slotnick (born October 2, 1968 ) is an American actor. He is known for roles in Twister (1996), Hollow Man (2000), Elevator (2011), The Single Guy (1995–1997), and Nip/Tuck (2003–2006).

Life and career
Slotnick was born in Chicago, Illinois and graduated from Chaparral High School in Las Vegas, Nevada. His film roles include computer industry pioneer Steve Wozniak in the film Pirates of Silicon Valley, and a part in the 1996 blockbuster Twister. In 2011 he completed the suspense film Elevator, in which he plays one of several people trapped in a New York elevator with an evil presence. Additionally, he was on the cast of the television shows Boston Public in 2000–2001, The Single Guy from 1995–1997, and Nip/Tuck from 2003–2006.

In 2009, Slotnick played Groucho Marx's role of Captain Jeffrey Spaulding in The Goodman Theatre's production of Animal Crackers. The performance was nominated for a Joseph Jefferson Award for best actor.

Slotnick has logged several guest appearances on a number of popular television shows. He also does commercial work, ads for the NBA, 21st Century Insurance, Staples and Verizon Fios.

Slotnick is Jewish.

title: Joey Slotnick


text:
Official multilingualism

Official multilingualism is the policy adopted by some states of recognizing multiple languages as official and producing all official documents, and handling all correspondence and official dealings, including court procedure, in these languages. It is distinct from personal multilingualism, the capacity of a person to speak several languages.

Afghanistan
Afghanistan uses Dari (or Afghan Persian) and Pashto as official languages. Many citizens are bilingual. These two languages account for 85% of Afghanis' native tongues.

Belarus
In Belarus, Russian is far more common than Belarusian, and Section 17 of the Constitution designates both as official languages.

Brunei Darussalam
Brunei Darussalam is extremely diverse linguistically and uses Malay and English as official languages.

Burundi
The official languages of Burundi are the local Kirundi language as well as the colonial French.

Cameroon
Cameroon is extremely diverse linguistically and uses English and French as official languages.

Canada
In Canada English and French have special legal status over other languages in Canada's courts, parliament and administration. At the provincial level, New Brunswick is the only official bilingual province, while Quebec is the only province where French is the sole official language, and the only officially monolingual province. The remaining provinces are predominantly English-speaking, but do not officially recognize English as the only official language. In practice, all provinces, including Quebec, offer some bilingual services and some education in both official languages up to the high school level. English and French are official languages in all three territories (because they are federally administered). In addition, Inuktitut is also an official language in Nunavut, and nine aboriginal languages have official status in the Northwest Territories.

Central African Republic
Out of 120 languages spoken in the Central African Republic, French and the Ngbandi-based creole Sango are official.

Chad
Citizens of Chad speak over 120 languages, and the standardized Chadian Arabic serves as the lingua franca with colonial language French also being official.

Cyprus
The island nation of Cyprus has had Greek and Turkish as its languages since the 1960 Constitution (Article 3, section 1). The usage of either language is complicated by the political dispute that lead to the creation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. English is also used.

Finland
In Finland, Finnish and Swedish are both considered national languages. Municipalities of Finland are divided into three categories: unilingual Swedish, unilingual Finnish or bilingual. Finnish is the maternal language of about 90% of the population, and the bilingual or swedophone population is concentrated to the coastal areas of Ostrobothnia and Southwest Finland. The autonomous province of Åland is officially unilingual (Swedish). Both Swedish and Finnish are compulsory school subjects.

Hong Kong
Hong Kong is officially bilingual. Both English and Chinese (Standard Mandarin and Cantonese) are official languages.

North Macedonia
The official, national and most widespread languages in the Republic of North Macedonia are Macedonian and Albanian. Apart from it, North Macedonia officially recognizes five national minority languages: Turkish, Romani, Serbian, Bosnian, and Aromanian. The Macedonian Sign Language is the country's official sign language. As of 2019, the Albanian language is recognized as an official language on the territory of North Macedonia.

Philippines
The Philippine constitution designates Filipino as the national language and – along with English – as official languages. Spanish was the national and official language of the country for more than three centuries under Spanish colonial rule, and became the lingua franca of the Philippines in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It remained, along with English, as a de facto official language until removed in 1973 by a constitutional change. After a few months it was re-designated an official language by presidential decree and remained official until 1987, when the present Constitution removed its official status. Spanish and Arabic are currently designated to be promoted on a voluntary and optional basis.

Some people in native Tagalog areas are bilingual, while in non-Tagalog areas it is common to be multilingual in Filipino, English, and in one or more of the regional languages, or as in other cases in languages such as Spanish, Minnan (Hokkien), and Arabic due to factors such as ancestry and religion. Eleven regional languages are recognised by the government as auxiliary official languages in their respective regions, while 90+ other languages and dialects are spoken by various groups.

Other bilingual or multilingual countries

 * 🇨🇰 Cook Islands
 * Eswatini
 * 🇭🇹 Haiti
 * 🇮🇳 India
 * 🇮🇶 Iraq
 * 🇮🇪 Ireland
 * 🇰🇿 Kazakhstan
 * 🇰🇪 Kenya
 * 🇰🇮 Kiribati
 * Kosovo
 * 🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan
 * 🇱🇸 Lesotho
 * Macau
 * 🇲🇬 Madagascar
 * 🇲🇹 Malta
 * 🇲🇭 Marshall Islands
 * 🇲🇦 Morocco
 * 🇳🇿 New Zealand
 * 🇳🇺 Niue
 * 🇵🇰 Pakistan
 * 🇵🇼 Palau
 * 🇵🇾 Paraguay
 * 🇼🇸 Samoa
 * 🇸🇴 Somalia
 * 🇱🇰 Sri Lanka
 * 🇸🇩 Sudan
 * 🇹🇿 Tanzania
 * Timor-Leste
 * 🇹🇴 Tonga
 * 🇹🇻 Tuvalu
 * 🇺🇦 Ukraine
 * 🇺🇬 Uganda

Officially multilingual

 * 🇧🇪 Belgium
 * 🇧🇴 Bolivia
 * 🇰🇲 Comoros
 * 🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea
 * 🇪🇷 Eritrea
 * 🇫🇯 Fiji
 * 🇮🇳 India
 * 🇱🇧 Lebanon
 * 🇱🇺 Luxembourg
 * 🇳🇴 Norway
 * 🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea
 * 🇵🇪 Peru
 * 🇷🇼 Rwanda
 * 🇸🇨 Seychelles
 * 🇿🇦 South Africa
 * 🇸🇬 Singapore
 * 🇨🇭 Switzerland
 * 🇻🇺 Vanuatu
 * 🇿🇼 Zimbabwe
 * 🇳🇱 Netherlands

title: Official multilingualism


text:
1938–1939 in the Spanish Civil War

Before this period, the Nationalists had already become dominant, yet the outcome of the war was still not certain. This progressively changed as the Nationalist forces notched up several victories.

The December 1937 – February 1938 Battle of Teruel was an important confrontation between Nationalists and Republicans. The city belonged to the Republicans at the beginning of the battle, but the Nationalists conquered it in January. The Republican government launched an offensive and recovered the city, however, the Nationalists conquered it for good by 22 February. On 14 April 1938, the Nationalists broke through to the Mediterranean Sea during the Aragon Offensive, cutting the government-held portion of Spain in two. The government tried to sue for peace in May, but Francisco Franco demanded unconditional surrender, and the war raged on. The Nationalist army pressed southward from Teruel and along the coast toward the capital of the Republic at Valencia but were halted in heavy fighting along the fortified XYZ Line.

The government now launched an all-out campaign to distract the Nationalists from their attack on Valencia and to reconnect their territory in the Battle of the Ebro, beginning on 24 July and lasting until 26 November. Although the campaign was militarily successful at first, it was fatally undermined by the Franco-British appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the Munich Agreement. The concession of Czechoslovakia destroyed the last vestiges of Republican morale by ending all hope of an anti-Francoist alliance with the great powers. The Republicans were eventually defeated and withdrew in November 1938, another significant step towards the Nationalist's final victory.

The retreat from the Ebro all but determined the outcome of the war. Eight days before the new year, Franco struck back by throwing massive forces into an invasion of Catalonia.

The Nationalists conquered Catalonia in a whirlwind campaign during the first two months of 1939. Tarragona fell on January 14, followed by Barcelona on 26 January and Girona on 5 February. Five days after the fall of Girona, the last resistance in Catalonia was broken.

On 27 February, the governments of the United Kingdom and France recognized Francoist Spain.

Only Madrid and a few other strongholds remained for the government forces. On 28 March, with the help of pro-Nationalist forces inside the city (the "fifth column" General Emilio Mola had mentioned in propaganda broadcasts in 1936), Madrid fell to the Nationalists. The next day, Valencia, which had held out under the guns of the Nationalists for close to two years, also surrendered. Victory was proclaimed on 1 April, when the last of the Republican forces surrendered.

After the end of the war, there were severe reprisals against the Nationalist's former enemies on the left, when thousands of Republicans were imprisoned and between 10,000 and 28,000 executed. Many other Republicans fled abroad, especially to France and Mexico.

Detailed chronology: 1938

 * January 8: Republican troops commanded by Generals Juan Hernández Saravia and Leopoldo Menéndez take the city of Teruel, surrendered by Colonel Domingo Rey d'Harcourt. The harsh winter conditions prevent the timely arrival of troops sent by Franco under the command of Generals Varela and Aranda.
 * February 20: Republican troops are forced to abandon Teruel and follow the highway to Valencia, under pressure from Moroccan troops commanded by General Yagüe. End of the Battle of Teruel.
 * March 6: The naval Battle of Cape Palos (the Nationalist heavy cruiser Baleares is sunk by Republican destroyers).
 * March 13: France reopens its borders for the transit of arms to the Republican zone.
 * April 5: Socialist minister of defense Indalecio Prieto quits in protest at the level of Soviet influence over the Spanish Republican Army.
 * April 15: The Nationalists reach the Mediterranean at Vinaròs, dividing the Republican zone in two.
 * June: France once again closes its borders.
 * July 5: The international Non-Intervention Committee reaches an agreement regarding the withdrawal of all foreign volunteers from Spain.
 * July 24: Start of the Battle of the Ebro. Republican forces attempt to divert the Nationalists from attacking Valencia and to diminish the pressure on Catalonia. At first, the Republican troops, commanded by General Modesto, achieve considerable success, but are then limited by superior Nationalist air power. Heavy combat continues into November
 * September 21: In a speech to the League of Nations Doctor Negrín, head of the Republican government, announces that the International Brigades will be pulled from the combat zones. The withdrawal begins October 4.
 * October 30: The Nationalists counterattack, forcing Republican troops back across the Ebro.
 * November 16: End of the Battle of the Ebro.
 * December 23: The battle for Barcelona begins. A six-pronged Nationalist attack is launched, with separate columns from the Pyrenees to the Ebro. They take Borges Blanques, surround Tarragona and reach the outskirts of Barcelona. The Republican government retreats from Barcelona to Girona, although troops continue to maintain the defense of the city.

Detailed chronology: 1939

 * January 5 : The Republican army starts a diversionary offensive in Extremadura, the Valsequillo Offensive.
 * January 15: France once again allows arms to flow to the Republic.
 * January 26: Barcelona falls to the Nationalists.
 * February 4: The Valsequillo Offensive ends.
 * February 7–9: Uprising against the Republic in Menorca. The Nationalist occupied the island.
 * February 10 : End of the Catalonia Offensive. Spain's border with France closed by Franco.
 * February 13: Franco approved the Ley de Responsablidades Políticas.
 * February 27: France and Great Britain recognized the Nationalist's government.
 * March 4–7: Uprising against Negrin's government in Cartagena.
 * March 5: The Republican Army led by the Colonel Segismundo Casado started a coup against the Negrín's government. Casado established a military junta, the National Defence Council at the time of the rebel Final offensive of the Spanish Civil War. The remaining Spanish Republican Navy ships (three cruisers, eight destroyers and one submarine) flee to Bizerte where they are interned.
 * March 6: The Republican government goes into exile in France.
 * March 7–11: Fight in Madrid between the supporters of the Negrin's government led by the Colonel Luis Barceló and the supporters of Casado
 * March 12–25: The Consejo de Defensa Nacional, headed by Colonel Casado, tries without success to negotiate with Franco.
 * March 26–31: Nationalist's final offensive against the Spanish Republic. The Nationalists captured 150,000 Republican soldiers.
 * March 28: With the virtual disintegration of the Republican army, the Nationalists take Madrid without further fighting.
 * March 30: The Nationalists occupied Valencia and the Italian troops Alicante.
 * March 31: The Nationalists occupied Almeria, Murcia and Cartagena.
 * April 1: Franco announces the end of the war. The United States recognized the Nationalist's government.

title: 1938–1939 in the Spanish Civil War