User talk:BD2412

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

Status: Active. bd2412 T

This administrator prefers not to fulfill solicited administrative actions, per Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions.; 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

049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059-060-061-062-063-064

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congratulations on hitting 2,500,000 edits! Best wishes. Red Director (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Director: Thanks! I knew I was around there. BD2412 T 01:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William King Atkinson has been accepted

William King Atkinson, 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!

BD2412 T 18:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Law-related articles lacking sources

A tag has been placed on Category:Law-related articles lacking sources indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The category has, and has long had, a banner stating: "This is a maintenance category which may sometimes be empty, but should not be considered useless", indicating that it is indeed a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. I have now populated the category. BD2412 T 16:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake here, BD2412. Sometimes we delete empty maintenance categories, for example, if a WikiProject is defunct, and sometimes we don't. The ones protected from C1 deletion usually have this template, Template:Possibly empty category, posted on them. I don't know how this particular category became empty but I appreciate you refilling it up with articles that are appropriate for it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thank you for the excellent job you do in keeping things tidy in the category department. BD2412 T 22:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is really very kind of you to say, BD2412, but this was a lapse on my part and Explicit, too. Unfortunately, sometimes, you get into a routine when you do the same tasks on a daily basis and you just carry out editing tasks without looking more closely. Since you have over 2M edits, I think you might be able to relate to sometimes editing on automatic pilot during routine editing tasks. But we rarely get maintenance categories showing up on lists like Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and that should have been a red flag indicating that they should be examined them more closely and see if an editor had removed the "Empty category" template from them. But the editor received a notice from you and Cryptic so I hope this won't be a problem in the future. Thanks again for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Tropical Biodiversity Conservation-CTBC

We love to add information regarding this NGO working on Biodiversity Conservation. 2403:A080:C04:67C0:9830:2D5C:EC3E:2B0F (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Can assist you with collecting information regarding CTBC 2403:A080:C04:67C0:9830:2D5C:EC3E:2B0F (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly free to begin a draft at Draft:Centre for Tropical Biodiversity Conservation. Note that in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, you will need to demonstrate coverage of this entity in reliable sources. BD2412 T 03:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last survivors of historical events

Hi, thanks again for the draftifying of this article. To your request for info, I've now submitted it for AfC (it's not perfect but have made some improvements). Will let you know if it's published. JSwift49 02:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSwift49: Thanks for the notice. BD2412 T 03:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Berkovitz v. United States has been accepted

Berkovitz v. United States, 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!

BD2412 T 00:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Blind Squirrel Games

Hello, BD2412,

I just ran into this draft article (because an editor made an orphaned talk page for it in main space) and noticed that it was created in 2021 so it wouldn't ordinarily fall under our guidelines as appropriate for a move to Draft space (according to WP:DRAFTIFY). Were there other reasons why you thought draftification was appropriate? Thanks for any additional information you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It was PRODed eight days before, and was therefore due for deletion. I thought it showed promise, but not enough to dePROD, so rather than deleting and then restoring to draft, I skipped the deletion part and moved it straight to draft. BD2412 T 21:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Hamersley has been accepted

William Hamersley, 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!

BD2412 T 03:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/doc protected by you?

Hi, i was trying to update the doc page Template:Split and dab/doc and it appears you've protected it. This may be a mistake, mabe you wanted to protect the template instead of the doc. FaviFake (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you also Template-protected Template:Split and dab as a Highly visible page, but as of today it only has 3 transclusions and it's the only split template that's protected over semi-protection. Could you lower it? Thanks FaviFake (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FaviFake: Done, cheers! BD2412 T 16:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of De castro family (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on De castro family (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion of this redirect. I don't think we usually even nominate redirects separately when they target a page set for deletion. BD2412 T 16:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of names used as placeholders in English has been accepted

List of names used as placeholders in English, 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 17:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PASOK edit

Just an FYI about whatever script, tool, or bot you might be using (seems a bit fast for human work). This change broke the URL in a citation by adding a space inside it. I've removed that part of the URL since it looked to be an attempt at text highlighting and works just fine without it, and reworked that portion of the article. Orxenhorf (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these who I am looking for?

Would you mind checking something for me? I am working on a project and wanted to know if the following deleted articles were people who worked in the gaming industry. Are they the same people who the corresponding BGG/RGPG links relate to?

If any of those are a hit, please let me know. :) Thanks! BOZ (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:, I'd say we are one for three:

Raymond Gordon Bayless (1920 – 2004) was an American artist, author and parapsychologist. Bayless was born in Oakland, California. As a teenager he worked in book and magazine illustration. He later became an artist and landscape painter specialising in oil paintings. He is also known for his science fiction fantasy paintings and drawings some of which were featured as cover arts on fantasy fiction books such as his Cthulhu artwork.

Joseph Jordan DeMarco (born September 12, 1988) is ranked 401st in the Junior class at Shawnee Mission East high school. Joseph goes by the name Joe and/or Joe D. DeMarco is a staff writer for the Shawnee Mission East Harbinger, and is also an outstanding culinary arts student.

Donald McKinney Adjunct Professor and Associate Conductor of Duquesne Symphony Orchestra, Wind Symphony, Contemporary Ensemble.

Cheers! BD2412 T 22:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for that. :) BOZ (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the first one to Draft:Raymond Bayless. BD2412 T 22:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was Tactical Command about this board game?[4] BOZ (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ:, it wasn't about anything, so I have created a disambiguation page at Tactical command and redirected it there. BD2412 T 19:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I see! Ok thanks for checking. BOZ (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul E. Boslaugh has been accepted

Paul E. Boslaugh, 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 18:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Watcher (Marvel Cinematic Universe) has been accepted

Watcher (Marvel Cinematic Universe), 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 00:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Bhoomige Bandha Bhagavantha. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: The duplicate template call was already in the template before I got there, it just had two expressions, and AWB standardized the nonstandard one, which made them identical. BD2412 T 02:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Ward (judge) has been accepted

Paul Ward (judge), 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 02:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird AWB edit summary

Nothing wrong with this edit, but I can't understand the edit summary at all: "replaced: ,D → , D (2), ,M → , M, ,Z → , Z (2)" as you do not seem to have replaced either of ,D or ,M or ,Z anywhere in the article? —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: AWB generates the edit summary, I suppose based on what it thinks has been changed. The only part of that I generate (or have control over) is the part that says "Clean up spacing around commas and other punctuation fixes". BD2412 T 15:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess this is basically a suggestion to file an AWB bug report :) —Kusma (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of McConnell Lake (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on McConnell Lake (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: The redirect previously pointed to this version of the target. I frankly don't see that any effort was made towards creating articles or article mentions for the red-linked lakes, which may or may not be noteworthy. BD2412 T 16:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move Reasoning Question

Hey BD2412. I was hoping you could explain why you choose "Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech" for the title of the article. From the look of the RM, there is no opposition to the true renaming itself. However, I notice two supports for "Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech", two supports for "Speech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of Ukraine", one clear support for "Special military operation speech", with two comments regarding the clear usage of "special military operation" in sources. If anything, I see a clear consensus to move, but a lack-of-consensus on the article name choice.

As directed by WP:MR, I am suppose to try to discuss it with you prior to opening a formal review. So, since your move reasoning was "...as a clearly more policy-compliant descriptive title", my question for you is what, if anything, makes "Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech" a "a clearly more policy-compliant descriptive title" rather than using "special military operation", as pointed out actually by three editors as being used in sources. I'm not wanting to open the MR due to a bad closure, but rather I believe the discussion (albeit stale) was actually at a no consensus name choice, rather than a "clear consensus" for closure. Hopefully you can get back to me soon! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to clarify my rationale for the move closure. To begin with, there was a clear consensus to move away from the existing title, On conducting a special military operation, which was broadly criticized by multiple editors as ambiguous, misleading, or invented. There being a clear consensus to move the article away from its current title. In that circumstance, if there were no consensus as to a move target, WP:BARTENDER would be invoked, and it would fall squarely within the discretion of the closing admin to determine which proposed title was the best option.

JWB stated: 99% of users of the encyclopaedia would not have a clue what "On conducting a special military operation" refers to, but would understand what "Putin's speech on invading Ukraine" refers to (emphasis added), which invokes a formulation very close to the proposal by Staberinde for Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech, Freedoxm then explicitly stated, "I support the new proposed title, Putin's invasion of Ukraine speech]]". As Staberinde stated, this is "a sufficiently descriptive, precise, and concise alternative".

NikitaIsNext05 indicated support for a different formulation including "Putin's speech".

Red Slash indicated support for the proposed move "or many other descriptive titles", which encompasses the alternative proposal that had already been made before their !vote.

In sum, a clear majority of participants either expressly supported the alternative proposal (or something functionally equivalent to it), or supported a move away from the current title without objecting to such an alternative formulation. BD2412 T 16:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, there was three alt proposals made besides the initial title proposed. The fact Red Slash did not specify which proposal means their !vote should not be a clear support for a specific alt proposal. That is what I am pointing out. You would be correct that a majority of editors supported a alt proposal, since the alt proposals had more consensus support than the original requested move. However, there was not 1 alt proposals made, there was actually three, leading to that 40-40-20 type consensus I mentioned, rather than a clear-cut consensus. The first proposed alt title was actually Special military operation speech in the discussion.

I think you made a good judgement call, and one based around policy, so I will not open a move review. But, I hope you can at least see how there was three alt proposals made, not a single one, which is what you seemed to specify in your closing and even here, using the rather than a. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ball shape" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ball shape 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 September 9 § Ball shape until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented in the discussion, thanks. BD2412 T 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Government of the 27th Dáil (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Government of the 27th Dáil (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reneau P. Almon has been accepted

Reneau P. Almon, 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lists of Japanese Governors-General (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lists of Japanese Governors-General (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feeling on this, but I don't know that policy is set on a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect to a "Foo" set index. BD2412 T 21:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lists of Japanese Governors-General (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lists of Japanese Governors-General (disambiguation) 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 September 13 § Lists of Japanese Governors-General (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented in the discussion. BD2412 T 01:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American studies scholars has been nominated for renaming

Category:American studies scholars has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 01:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have commented in the discussion(s). BD2412 T 01:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of natural disasters by death toll

(List of natural disasters by death toll#20th century) After thousands of edits made by hundreds of users, I've found a duplicate year (1972). Both are earthquakes, but are (accidentally) put into the article. The events are the 1972 Qir earthquake and the 1972 Managua earthquake. Can you find which is deadlier so only one can put into the article. What's your opinion? 27.75.133.93 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have any insight into How to answer that question definitively. BD2412 T 21:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Kirk closure

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but it was pretty obvious most of that discussion was canvassed from elsewhere offwiki. Even the deletion discussion's talk page supports this. I'm curious how much time you spent reading through each and every one of those comments, because I really don't want to have to bring up a DRV. Electricmemory (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of agree with sentiment @Electricmemory, the WP:SNOW rational seemed to be mostly based upon there being more Keep than Delete votes, without examining the quality of argument or if they were influenced in any way. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that canvassing obviously occurred. It does not change the outcome. BD2412 T 13:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the closure should have mentioned quality and not just quantity. I don't question the keep outcome - there were more than enough keep !votes with good rationales, especially towards the end, but I don't agree that it's SNOW when weighing the !votes (many of which were WP:JUSTAVOTE, made no reference to policy, or contradicted policy). The AfD was flooded with nonsense keep !votes and I would have preferred if the closing statement acknowledged this. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanilla Wizard This is exactly why I considered a DRV. The ratio of good !keep vs good !delete votes was absolutely not enough to be considered SNOW, and the closing statement by @BD2412 made no acknowledgement of this nor of issues of vote legitimacy. @BD2412 If you would like to amend your statement or something along those lines, that would be appreciated. Electricmemory (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanilla Wizard and Electricmemory: Something along those lines. BD2412 T 02:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Electricmemory - Just a word of advice, I personally wouldn't recommend asking DRV to consider changing "SNOW keep" to "keep." I say this because I once tried to get a DRV when I thought a discussion closed as "keep" should have been closed as "no consensus" and got harshly ridiculed by DRV for that (even by editors who agreed "no consensus" would have been a more correct close) on the basis that it's wasting their time because that wouldn't affect whether the page is deleted or not. Which is understandable, but it was still an unpleasant experience and I expect that's what would happen if this were brought there. Though I do agree there is a meaningful and not unimportant distinction between regular "keep", "no consensus", and "SNOW" outcomes as they refer to the strength of the consensus (or lack thereof). Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yabujin

Good job on Yabujin page, we just have to wait a bit until more sources come up for it to be notable enough. IT seems only that one Pitchfork source from March is viable at the moment. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, my only activity on that page was to move it to draft space per a WP:RFU request. BD2412 T 21:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah it listed you as the creator of the article, who originally made it? Aradicus77 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page history, it seems to be an IP. BD2412 T 22:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You deserve all sorts of honor for taking up the task of closing that Kirk RM. That was not going to be easy for anyone. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do this for a good time. BD2412 T 19:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of fictional invertebrates for deletion

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

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

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

Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in opposition to this nomination, which would remove a piece from a well-established set. BD2412 T 20:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I applaud you for understanding the difference between a suspect and a perpetrator, but I think in your recent close where you said a specific perpetrator's guilt, you meant to to say "suspect". Srnec (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: I changed it to "person"; theoretically, if the current suspect is innocent, then there is an actual perpetrator who might not even be a suspect. BD2412 T 21:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

I have one concern about the wording in your closure comment. Otherwise, I find it thoughtful and well-reasoned. Thanks for doing this. In your closure, you reference the naming convention of WP:ASSASSINATION. It's important to acknowledge that this is an essay—not a naming convention/guideline— or at least to not elevate its status. To the extent the advice there is reasonable, aligns with P&G (whether or not everyone agreed on this), and was persuasive to a critical mass of editors, I think it needed to be addressed in the closure but I hope you will consider rewording this. Thanks again, truly. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the previous RM on that page, I also think it was a good close. Maybe also rule on the moratorium in your close? My guess is it will probably be brought up again in 24 hours if you don't. Or I can if you think I should. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Myceteae and Mike Selinker: I have adjusted the clothes to indicate that WP:ASSASSINATION is a well regarded essay. I do not think it is necessary to address the moratorium. Someone would have to be quite the optimist to open another new move request at this juncture and expect consensus for a different result. BD2412 T 22:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks! And I think the close is good without addressing the moratorium question. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good! Mike Selinker (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 thanks for the rational close. Per WP:POSTMOVE#Editnotices I've moved the edit notice to the new the target. Just leaving this comment as a reminder as it's often forgotten (by myself often as well). Why these notices don't get moved with the protection settings I still don't understand, needs a tick box at minimum. CNC (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to one sentence.

Thank you for an excellent close at Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Requested move 11 September 2025. I do, however, find one sentence not to be written ideally.

you wrote:

We do not have a principal of the earliest author getting to choose a title that is then held sacrosanct until a supermajority says otherwise.

I’m not sure if this is some sort of a fallacious argument, or argumentation by rhetorical trick, to insist that something never said is not true. Sacrosanct vs default? Supermajority vs concensus?

We do have a principle, not quite explicit, but old, and evident in TITLECHANGES, and RETAIN, and NOCONCENSUS, that in the absence of consensus the original should be retained. Status quo ante. If there is no concensus, do not flit between closely competing options.

You closing statement asserts neither a consensus nor a rough consensus. Was this intentional? Your closing statement implies a finding that there is not a “no consensus”. On your comments on TITLECHANGES, I would prefer to have have seen you write that the thresholds implicit in TITLECHANGES are overcome. I think this is easily argued on multiple angles. One is that the new title is not “controversial”. You might reasonably have written: After a thorough consideration by many participants, there is a rough consensus that “assassination” is the preferred title.

I think it is important that article writers, new page creators, do get some special standing in the face of bold title changes and no consensus discussions. I think they do, and they should, and you should avoid overstatements that might paraphrased and misused in other cases. Compare WP:BRADSPEAK. If you find yourself held with high respect, you acquire a burden of a need to take extra care.

Overall, good close, thank you.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: There is no such thing as a status quo ante for an article this new, and we should not act as if there is or can be. If the article creator had decided to title the article "Charlie Kirk done got shot", would that get special standing? If so, then we make article titling a privilege of the winner of a race to create the article first, and encourage haste over deliberation. BD2412 T 22:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view and wording, it would be the default until a consensus to change, which would sure arise promptly on an objectively bad title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial problem here is the historical treatment of "consensus to change" as indeed requiring a supermajority. BD2412 T 22:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my earliest days of taking interest in the workings of Wikipedia (having read that in theory, it can’t work) I deeply studied Wikipedia:Supermajority. It is fundamentally flawed in being inherently vote-counting (contrary to its superficial wording), and thus contrary to WP:Consensus (then a mere guideline, while WP:CCC was Policy, and did not cite “supermajority”).

In short summary of my complaint, your close introduced the words “sacrosanct” and “supermajority”, when no participant in the discussion used or implied these words. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was, however, discussion of WP:TITLECHANGES (your discussion, in fact), which on its face applies where "an article title has been stable for a long time", and was therefore troubling to see raised with respect to an article with a lifespan measured in weeks. BD2412 T 23:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your read on how things were progressing. I think you got it right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, I do generally think that it is appropriate to gauge not only the general feeling of the discussion, but how it is impacted by developments. BD2412 T 12:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Rancho Vista Estates

Hi @BD2412. Thanks for your comment on my article on El Rancho Vista Estates. I know you left the comment on my talk page but I thought it might be better situation on the talk page of the article, so I've moved it here. I welcome your thoughts. BadNewsBear (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BadNewsBear: I saw that, and will look further shortly. BD2412 T 00:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Wesley Pickle has been accepted

George Wesley Pickle, 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 02:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General query

Hello, BD2412,

I am hoping that you might be able to answer a query I've had. For the past 3 days or so, Wikipedia User categories have been emptying out for no particular reason. You can see what I'm talking about by scanning the past few days of Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. This category generally has about 100 empty categories in it but it now has over 400 empty categories. It's very unusual to have a lot of User categories in this Empty category list. I think someone is tinkering with templates but I just want to be sure that we don't delete hundreds of categories that are then going to be needed to be recreated when someone reverts a change on a template. Do you know what is happening? Thanks for any insight you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Have you asked User:Explicit? They might have some insight, as they seem to be nominating a lot of the empty categories for deletion. I am aware of no discussions or template changes eventuating this, though. BD2412 T 12:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why they've become empty either. I spot checked some randomly yesterday and found no evidence of templates being edited, so I didn't think much of it. For example, Category:Wikipedians in Seaside, California should be populated by Template:User Seaside, California, the | usercategory = parameter is set to that, but the userbox isn't transcluded on any userpage.

I dug a little deeper after this ping and found this edit to the base Template:Userbox/doc, which began utilizing Template:Userbox/styles.css. It may be responsible, but I can't say for sure. Matrix, can you look into the matter and see if your creation may be affecting categorization here? ✗plicit 12:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: thanks for pinging me. I think per Special:Diff/1312645403 @Jonesey95's changes are probably related to this, so maybe they can state their rationale. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:Jlwoodwa#General query, and I did state my rationale in the edit summary also. Thanks for the ping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for everyone helping to get to the bottom of this query. Much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Rose Tessier

Greetings, You wrote: "I am opting not to relist this discussion because it was relatively well-participated in." Twenty-eight of the comments were by user:Scooby453w who has been blocked/banned for using and abusing multiple accounts, IPs, disruptivly editing and general sockpuppetry. Could the page be relisted by you or does it need to be completely redone? Regards, MattSucci (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was well-participated in based on the number of participants, not the number of comments per participant. The matter having concluded several months ago, it would not make sense to relist at this point, and a new nomination would be appropriate. BD2412 T 14:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍🏼 MattSucci (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hiram K. Undercofler has been accepted

Hiram K. Undercofler, 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 16:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid AWB

Be aware that AWB has an inexplicable penchant for moving empty {{coord}} templates out of invisible comments in infoboxes to the bottom of articles, as here, here, and here, which causes the articles to pop up in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags. Please preview your AWB edits to be sure this doesn't happen. Deor (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor: I am just going to delete them when I see them. They serve no actual purpose, and are used so sporadically that they can be of no great benefit to the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]