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 (e)

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: William West Harvey has been acceptedEdit

William West Harvey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! BD2412 T 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jay S. Parker has been acceptedEdit

Jay S. Parker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

SturgeonEdit

Here's something to think about...Wikipedia staying on the cutting edge as the sum of all knowledge. - the article, Sturgeon - What if I donated the following segment to the project for inclusion in that article? 4:00 - 7:10?? And possibly close it with another clip (54:00 - 56:00) before the credits roll? I've mentioned the use of video in various discussions over the years but never pushed it because some of the trial articles would include my contributions of clips from programs I produced back in the 90s. I don't want the focus to change from the benefits of having video integrated into our articles to potential COI discussions about me, if you know what I mean. Anyway, see how Everipedia is utilizing video in their articles. The difference in our situation is that the videos would be hosted with our article instead of sending readers off-site to YouTube. Atsme Talk 📧 20:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bill Murray part? BD2412 T 21:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, leading in from Bob to Bill. It's a 3 min clip from a one-hour program. I'd be giving away (donating) about $7k worth of footage to WP.   Atsme Talk 📧 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I would think that the segment after Bill Murray from 7:11 up to about 9:48, discussing the kinds of sturgeon and their characteristics, would be more apt for the article. Bill Murray is a bit flip, and talks about some non-sturgeony things. Did I ever tell you that I made a proposal at Wikimania about five years ago that Wikimedia should get into the business of collaborative documentary filmmaking? It hasn't been followed up on, sadly. BD2412 T 22:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
No, you didn't. Was it a formal proposal? Atsme Talk 📧 23:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I gave a talk on it. The reception was very mixed, but basically I said that we have people within the community who are able to find or make all the pieces that would go together to make a documentary on just about any natural history topic. All we need is a collaborative video editing platform. BD2412 T 23:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, next chance we get, let's put our heads together and make them an offer they can't refuse...especially considering the technology we have available to us today. At least Alexa reads the lead, which is why we need to be extra careful that our leads closely adhere to BLP policy & NPOV. Atsme Talk 📧 23:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I do like a challenge. Sometimes the only way to prove to the doubters that a thing can be done is to buckle down and actually do it. That, incidentally, is how I came to write the article on Size, because other editors thought that the topic was so abstract that it couldn't be done. I couldn't pass that up. BD2412 T 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Ars novaEdit

BD2412, not sure what to do here. I want to split the Template:Ars nova into two seperate templates of "Ars nova" and "ars subtilior" since at the moment it contains both for some reason. At the moment Template:Ars subtilior simply redirects to the Template:Ars nova so... do I nominate the redirect to be deleted (is that even a thing?) and make the template... or put up the split for discussion somewhere? (WP:TDF seems to only be for deletion and merging but I could be wrong) I doubt the split would result in any opposition since Ars nova and Ars subtilior are separate articles and movements. Also, I'm glad to see you're continuing to watch the Isleworth page (and editing it too!), the previous conversation did admittedly get a little hostile, but I'd like to think we all resolved it to some extent... Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and split the template out. Let me know what you think. As for the Isleworth, I am still knocking that around the back of my mind. I am not a fan of Wikipedia appearing to take sides in authorship disputes, and prefer the "teach the controversy" approach where we merely point out what arguments and counterarguments are made by who, and let the reader draw their own conclusions from that data. BD2412 T 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the split, I tweaked it a little but it looks good. Normally I would be with you on your view of how to present controversial topics, but the fact that this is a Leonardo makes things more tricky. That is to say, in preparation for gradually working on the Leonardo da Vinci article (to eventually reach FA, hopefully...) I've been collecting more sources and they all address many paintings by Leonardo or those attributed to him. The issue with the Isleworth is that not a single one of these sources even addresses (a couple mention it in passing) it's potentiality as an authentic Leonardo. Some of the books are the opinions of scholars and others, like Zollner and Marani attempt to display the art community's current consensuses on individual works. Controversial works like La Bella Principessa and Bacchus that have sometimes been attributed to Leonardo are discussed by these authors, but with far more attention and consideration than the Isleworth. That's the core of the issue, no leading Leonardo scholars even play with the idea that it's authentic (or partly), and the people who do push its authenticity the most are past owners of the painting or an organization that was literally founded to prove its authenticity (they weren't even founded to "investigate" or "consider" the authenticity, it was simply to prove it...). The other issue is that online sources are equally unreliable, I've seen some claim that "most experts are skeptical" and others that "the vast majority of experts agree with a partial attribution" but who are these experts? I just can't fathom how I have books by the world's leading Leonardo experts but none of them even explore the attribution as a possibility, so how can there be even close to a majority that supports the attribution? The shady (alleged) connections between the foundation and owners of the painting is also troubling. I hope I'm not just repeating to you parts of the conversation from the talk page since this message (imo) better explains the issue as a whole. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It's a fascinating topic, but likely a conversation for another day, as my attention is primarily on other projects at the moment. I certainly think that in such cases, it is worth lining up the the identities of the people who argue one side, and those who argue the other side, and note their asserted qualifications and affiliations. Of course, with scientific disputes (is the Earth flat, do vaccines cause autism), it is also possible to bring in scientific studies and replicability of experiments, which makes these things more clear-cut. I'm glad the template split worked out. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

G-LogEdit

BD2412: I just noticed that the page G-Log was deleted last year after a formal nomination process. I believe this company still to be relevant, because it had a notable product as recognised by Gartner. In the Magic Quadrant for Transportation Management System, 13 April 2010, by C. Dwight Klappich (Gartner RAS Core Research Note G00174077), the following was mentioned: “OTM has a mature and stable product development team that Oracle inherited when it acquired G-Log. Oracle has impressively been able to keep this team intact and add to it four years after the acquisition”. If you need more information or evidence to justify re-opening the page, let me know what you’re after. Thanks - Landriesse (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the article to Draft:G-Log, but it will need substantial improvement to meet WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 20:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I will collect materials with the founders, Landriesse (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Make sure you find sources that meet WP:RS and WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 14:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ali Mahmoud Al SuleimanEdit

Hello, User:BD2412 how are you? can please remove the mention for deletion to this page as you see you have reviewed this page and it is accepted Have a nice day Mevlut Bin Omar (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of an AfD tag from a page is not permitted. You will just have to wait for the process to conclude. BD2412 T 17:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok I hope you give me good opinion with this article thank you Mevlut Bin Omar (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)