Svetlana Velmar-Janković

This user prefers to communicate on-wiki, rather than by email.

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

033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045-046-047-048

049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059-060-061-062

I'm not sure if there's been a more central discussion somewhere about this, but to me while grouping the merge targets by increments of five degrees does seem convenient, the result is rather unnatural when the 20–25 lists cross the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn and the 65–70 the Arctic/Antarctic Circles without making any direct mention to them. At the very least the 23.5 and 66.5 circles should be added to the new lists, but I think it would be better to make the split at these lines, so that each article is within a single region. Also, titling the articles as "between the 20th and the 25th" is confusing as to whether it's supposed to include the 20th or the 25th. Would it be too confusing to have the articles organised as 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–23, 24–30, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45, 46–50, 51–55, 56–60, 61–66, 67–75 and 76–80 instead? This way it would be clear that the tropics and polar circles aren't included, and which list includes the fives and tens. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south. I have no objection to mentions of the Tropics and Arctic/Antarctic Circles in those articles. The reason I didn't say, e.g., "between the 21st and the 25th" and "between the 26th and the 30th" was that this would give the impression that the degree between 25 and 26 was not covered by either article. I am certainly open to changes in titling and configuration that clarify things; I would only object to a return to the previous situation of a separate article for every degree on the map. With respect to the ranges proposed, for the most part they are already organized that way, but I think it would be needlessly awkward to have the 16–23, 24–30 numbering just to accommodate the rather arbitrary designation of the tropics. That's just my opinion, though. A broader discussion might yield a different consensus, which I would respect. BD2412 T 04:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to delete the page Shadow of a Man (song) altogether, I would ask you to please restore in the draft space for further improvement and possible resubmission at a later date. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I have redirected the title as a WP:ATD; the history is still there if you would like to work on it. BD2412 T 01:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect The B has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 5 § The B until a consensus is reached. GilaMonster536 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GilaMonster536: I am at a loss to understand why I have been noticed for this discussion. It does not appear that I have ever even edited the redirect in question. BD2412 T 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted more people to see it. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Note: Your recent decision on the AfD nomination of LoveDrug is referenced as an example within the RFC (but, to be clear, without any ascription of fault, as I think there is genuine confusion and ambiguity in the policy). Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flipandflopped: I had no involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoveDrug. BD2412 T 18:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I mixed you up because you were the one who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow of a Man (song). It relates to substantively the same ambiguity. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BD2412, I patrol on articles tho I don’t have rights but I’m experienced, Do you mind granting me access for "Pending Changes Reviewer", I will love to contribute more with that role, Thanks alot for your time. Best Regards (CP) 23:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chippla360: I adhere to Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions, and therefore do not grant requests sought on my talk page. The appropriate place to make this request is at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. BD2412 T 00:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vansittart Bay, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 01:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Casu proviso has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition sourced to a single source and unimproved for about 19 years.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I presume I am being noticed of this due to my previous work with short articles on writs, as I was not the author of this article; I have speedily merged and redirected it to List of writs#C. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thank you! Bearian (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Madigan, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 02:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you were a recently active admin and I had a question about which noticeboard to put a request on.
Two users have been edit-warring with each other on two different articles, and I wanted to bring attention to it. On one of these articles, one user has also reverted edits by me & another user. I want the content of the article brought back to neutral-POV, but would not like to engage in edit-warring myself to do so.
Where should I leave this request? Do I need separate requests for each user/article? Or would it be one request about article content & another about user conduct?
I've not mentioned the users by name because I felt mentioning them specifically to an admin without leaving a notice on their talk page feels wrong? I will do so when/if I put this request on an actual noticeboard.
Thanks for your help!  🚫 Lɪᴠᴇs ⬅️ 〈^Nᴇᴡ_Tᴀʟᴋ〉 04:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Lives Left: If the edit warring is breaching WP:3RR, that would be the place to report it. If this is more of a slow-motion edit war, and engaging the individual editors on their talk pages is ineffective, it might be ripe at this point to take to WP:ANI, with appropriate notifications. BD2412 T 22:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We've been discussing the possibility of replacing the current image of Michael Jackson on his Wikipedia page due to its poor quality. Although there's interest in changing the image, there aren't any high-quality, copyright-free photos available on Wiki Commons. I've contacted Getty Images, and they're open to allowing their images to be used on Wikipedia since it's a non-commercial platform. However, I've been informed that Wikipedia Commons requires a free license, such as CC-BY-SA 4.0. Given this, I was wondering if it's possible to upload a Getty Images photo on English Wikipedia under the non-free content criteria?. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic: I believe that this would actually require community discussion, and the establishment of a new standard, probably with its own set of templates and alteration to the local protocol for uploading images to English Wikipedia. We would need some assurance of permanence to this arrangement on the part of Getty Images, since it would be fairly disruptive to come to depend on them for a volume of images that could be pulled from us by a later decision on their part. I don't mean to be discouraging, I think this is a good opportunity, but we must be careful in its initiation. BD2412 T 15:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]