User talk:Bedivere/archive

October 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to David Shankbone—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: No need to revert me as if I were a vandal. The article was deleted through AfD and later subject to two deletion reviews, and it was decided not to be restored. The article is largely the same as it was in 2009, when it was deleted. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC) PS. See [1] It is not that different, just three new sources. --Kuatrero (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted as well. User:Materialscientist is right, those three new sources are a key point, the deletion was specifically because there weren't enough good sources. --GRuban (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: I do not agree. The new sources, although better in some ways than the previous ones, do not indicate Shankbone is necessarily notable. Anyway, I'm not doing anything else. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2021

Hello, when you add people to the Deaths in 2021 page, please note that they should be in alphabetical order under each day. Thank you. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lolol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Las Cabras. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incident

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dentren | ^Talk 15:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent page move

Hello Kuatrero, please see this overview of articles linking to Ñuble Province, which you have just turned into a disambiguation page. Technically, all of these need to be redirected to a new, non-disambiguating target (presumably Ñuble Province (1974–2018) in most cases) using a piped link, so I'd appreciate if you could have a look. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AngryHarpy: Hi there. I'm conscious of such consequences. I'll go change some of the links in order to correct the (unintended) disruption I've caused. Kind regards :-) --Kuatrero (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just wanted to make sure you're aware :) AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incident, again

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dentren | ^Talk 12:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dentren: You are welcome to discuss the article's naming at its talk page. I opened a thread there (actually, before you reported me). --Kuatrero (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quitento, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palma. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso scholars

A tag has been placed on Category:Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso scholars indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^Read! Talk! 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarata Dept.

A lot of the sourcing I used to create and build up the page, in hindsight, appears to be more from the Peruvian/American POV and uses very little from the Chilean one. I might work to fix it in the future, but for the time being I am thankful regarding the neutrality tag you added. Cheers. 180app (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@180app: Hi there. Thanks for your understanding. I am happy that you created these articles. I believe the Spanish Wikipedia article reads more neutral as it does not go in depth into the conflict between Peru and Chile, and although it should be definitely be mentioned, it expands more into the administrative function of the department rather than the controversy. I can help out later. Saludos, estimado. Bedivere (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chile Vamos

Hi

Will the name be kept? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. To day, the name is still Chile Vamos. The coalition has used alternative names in recent elections (Vamos por Chile in the Constitutional Convention election; Chile Podemos + in the parliamentary one), but the government coalition is still named Chile Vamos. Even today's El Mercurio edition calls it Chile Vamos. --Bedivere (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

don't remove TP comments

Only the most outrageous violations of the TP guidelines should result in that - and the comment the user made about anti-semitism does not rise to that level even remotely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.149 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2021 Chilean general election

On 21 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Chilean general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Heart (Pnau remix)

Hi Bedivere! Regarding your recent addition to "Cold Heart (Pnau remix)", could you please cite the CD version of The Lockdown Sessions that you have for the extended length of the song. Considering that streaming services have the same length for the single and album versions, your addition may be considered WP:OR if it is not cited correctly. Thanks! --LOVI33 17:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LOVI33: I know. I'm just not quite sure how to cite my CD. If you could please help out, I'd do it immediately! --Bedivere (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've just done. I'm not sure if it's quite correct so feel free to make changes :-) --Bedivere (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks for that. LOVI33 17:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"La Novia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect La Novia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#La Novia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vitaium (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Viña del Mar University alumni

A tag has been placed on Category:Viña del Mar University alumni indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^Read! Talk! 06:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of Jorge Vargas González

Hi (hola) - I just wanted to add a comment here since I think easier to engage and less disruptive to others. I generally don't think the DRV process is helpful in this case because the close was quite acceptable based on the information at hand (which is more or less the only way a DRV process can proceed). What I think would be the best way forward is to ask at WP:REFUND for the last version of the article, work on the draft and go through the WP:AFC process. I don't see NPOL being any way to "rescue" the article. Cordialmente, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there :-). I guess I will do that. Thanks for your advice. Cuídese mi amigo. Bedivere (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Bedivere

Thank you for creating El derecho de vivir en paz (song).

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Izkia Siches. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bbb23: I will not appeal the block. However, as I wrote in the Izkia Siches talk page, my intention was to focus on content and discussion. I did restore a previous version of the page because I thought you forgot to do so, not in order to get blocked on sight. I hope that you understand that my intention was to resume work on the article, though. Please also note that another user of the article previously also agreed there was undue weight on recent events; in fact, they started the thread. I forgot to mention in the talk page that the removed content does not even appear in the Spanish Wikipedia. Please reconsider your decision. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "forget to do so". I almost never restore one edit warrior's version of an article. See Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION. And if you thought I had forgotten, you could have asked me instead of restoring your version. I warned you at WP:AN3; you even acknowledged the warning on my Talk page. BTW, of all your arguments on the merits, the Spanish Wikipedia is irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Should have asked, you're correct. Will not happen again. Bedivere (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gabriel Boric. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dentren | ^Talk 15:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren, it is you and only you who is edit warring and disregarding other editors' comments at the article's talk page, including your RFC. Please stop such disruptive behavior. Bedivere (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gabriel Boric, you may be blocked from editing. Dentren | ^Talk 11:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dentren | ^Talk 22:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious you don't want to collaborate, rather, to impose your point of view. How difficult is it for you to discuss on the talk page? This warning is completely unwarranted. Bedivere (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 26, 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Dentren | ^Talk 19:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daniel Case Is this block correct? The reported user was not blocked. Bedivere (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC) You're correct ... since I had blocked you in the past, I got myself turned around. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

classickrockhistory at In the Wee Small Hours

On what grounds do you consider the source unreliable? Certainly a quote by Scott Yanow is appropriate. Do you believe the site made up Yanow's quote? I'd be interested to hear your concerns. Thanks, and happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with citing Yanow, but does it seem to you that a basic WordPress site with a rimbombant publication title, whose links have been added as bare urls in order to boost their SEO rank, which is nowhere near being a reliable source as it only looks like a blog by a musician, is a reliable source actually? Bedivere (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case it's fair to call the source unreliable in general, however this falls into the part of WP:UGC where "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which description Yanow meets. That said, if a better source is found containing this information, this low-quality source should be replaced. Thanks for your volunteer efforts here! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thank you too for your efforts! Kind regards. Bedivere (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Systems in Blue songs and albums

I've BLARred the most of SIB songs and albums because it lacked WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS, respectively now, you've unredirected back? Also by note, Discogs cannot be cited as per WP:USERG. SIB songs and albums should be redirected if it goes per the respective music recording notabilty guides. Read the NSONGS and NALBUMS if you wish to take a look back at the unredirected-SIB songs. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:1DB4:2EA4:F966:9B0E (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 2600:1700:9BF3:220:1DB4:2EA4:F966:9B0E, I have undone your edits as I deem them as unconstructive. Your only edits, actually, have been related to Systems in Blue, including the request for deletion of the artist page (which you did not even create). I don't have a strong opinion on the songs' articles, some definitely should be redirected if they failed to chart or do not have coverage in third-party sources, but your behavior is unacceptable and you should not proceed as you did, for example and in another matter, proposing the deletion of a Paul Young album article which was definitely notable. Bedivere (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I've restored some redirects as some of these songs and albums do not seem notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. I wasn't too sure about a couple of others so these restorations remain in place, for now, unless you want to nominate them for deletion (as a joint nomination or one-by-one). Bedivere (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion of state party chairs

Howdy, I noticed that you mass-nominated for deletion a bunch of Democratic Party state party chairs, some of which are obviously notable for 1 or 2 additional things besides being a state party chair, such as Ben Wikler. Please stop doing that. Please spend time actually reading the articles and understanding if they meet WP:GNG, which means WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources in a sustained way. They do not have to hold public statewide office to be notable. Andre🚐 22:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Andrevan. I made a rather strict interpretation of the policy, and I understand your point. I hope you however understand mine, in the sense that some of these people have only received coverage by being the state chair of the Democratic State Party. I should have been more careful though and gone through some of the most obvious non notable ones. Bedivere (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a strict interpretation, but a misinterpretation. See the policy: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Andre🚐 05:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a misinterpretation, though, @Andrevan. The people whose articles were nominated for deletion are not elected local officials (not state-level, but lower-level such as councillors or mayors) nor unelected candidates for political office. In other words, elected local officials and unelected candidates may be notable if they meet the GNG. Since these articles refer to people who are the chair of their states' democratic party, they may only be notable if they meet GNG as they don't meet any of the two criteria mentioned at NPOL, that is:

• Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. None of them have held "international, national or state/province-wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies". You can see I did not nominate for deletion those state chairs who have held state legislative office.
• Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage Some may meet this criteria. Since I was not sure just by reading some of these articles, I nominated them regardless, but have since withdrawn a couple of nominations as they were obviously wrong but, from my point of view, were valid as the articles did not reflect their notability.

Bedivere (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The articles met GNG as written, as in Ben Wikler, Jane Kleeb, Judith Whitmer, Tina Podlodowski, Mike Schmuhl, Yvette Lewis (politician), Glen J. Smith, Lavora Barnes, Ken Martin (politician), Nancy DiNardo, and Katie Bernhardt, they meet the GNG. Were you going to delete some Republicans too or just Democrats? Andre🚐 05:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with you re. the notability of some of these, but I don't mind if they are kept. It shouldn't be a big deal. Going for Republicans? Maybe later. I got to these Democratic Party politicians and that's it. Bedivere (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating anything for deletion, you should search for sources online as described at WP:BEFORE, see part D1: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. I notice you said that you did not do that, so please do that. CT55555(talk) 08:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did some previous searches on some of these. The one you mention, I did not and said so. Most articles were in very bad shape. Bedivere (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this statement in WP:POLOUTCOMES remains true "Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons." I also think three things are true: 1) Being a state party chair does not provide any inherent notability; 2) Many pages of state chairs that may meet GNG can and should be expanded to include more about what they accomplished while in office and not just "they exist" - a standard also applied to local politicians; 3) It is helpful if a WP:BEFORE search is done before rapidly nominating through a category as there are some who may (and do) have stronger claims to notability than others. --Enos733 (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in 2023 Covenant School shooting. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude This warning (?) is not friendly at all and does not even apply to this. The name of the perpetrator, although mentioned in the lead, should be in the first paragraph of the body. Merely naming him as Hale does not sound good and is not good English in my opinion. Bedivere (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard warning, sorry if you felt it wasn't friendly. See MOS:LASTNAME which states that "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". ––FormalDude (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Yeah, I read that immediately after you first pointed it out. I'm still unconvinced it applies, as that whole MOS page refers to biographies, not articles of events. Bedivere (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm telling you it applies, whether you choose to believe me is up to you. You can always discuss it on the talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a biography? It isn't. I'm not messing with it anyway. Bedivere (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article Leycang El Grandioso

Hello dear Bedivere. I hope you are very well today. I have moved the article Leycang El Grandioso to a draft to work on the article and improve its reference links. Sorry for the inconvenience caused, and I hope you can understand that I want to improve the article so that it meets the requirements. Best regards, Ftrbnd (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Of course you have already seen this, but I want to cover my bases. Also I can't figure out how to retract my noticeboard discussion. I give up! Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedivere, you should consider dispute resolution, and stop with the vandal templates. PhilKnight (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PhilKnight. There is an ongoing discussion at the moment in the article talk page. It has not been just me but at least two other users who have reworded and/or removed the Rauwerda bit yet this IP and Chive Cream Cheese have inissted on reinstating such a mention. I think the article should be reverted to the last stable version. Bedivere (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has reverted. I have protected the article for a week, which should give you enough time to establish consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings is fine

Hi Bedivere, as a late note regarding Special:Diff/1163281871, please have a look at WP:UP#CMT. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information @ToBeFree, good day! Bedivere (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Ximena Abarca

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Ximena Abarca, which you proposed for deletion. I did a Google News search and found multiple articles about her in Spanish.[2]. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

--A. B. ^(talk • contribs • global count) 01:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]