It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

(Thanks to Alan Liefting, via BMK)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svgThis 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
Note to administrators (not visible to others): I have just learned that it is possible to leave a note that is only visible to administrators.
By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):

United Democratic Alliance (Kenya)Edit

Hello could you help me change the default colour of the political party I've linked above. I've tried to change but it seems I can't. It predominantly uses yellow as their choice. The code is # F4CB23. Thank you. (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not my specialty. There are other editors who work more regularly with establishing party colors who would be better able to help you. BD2412 T 02:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


This page in Kiswahili was created, but not by me. Any idea why or if it is something that should cause concern? Atsme 💬 📧 10:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: No cause for concern, this happens to me all the time. Typically what will happen is that the edit history of an article that you have worked on will be imported to another Wiki, which will mistake that for you making a first edit to the site, and will greet you accordingly. BD2412 T 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 Y - thank you! Atsme 💬 📧 20:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Thank you. --Glanvil (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I moved the discussion from the NOR noticeboard for the reason in my edit summary. It seemed that the discussion of the issue there was too long, in comparison to most of the other topics on the noticeboard; there was also a risk that our editing of the noticeboard could overwrite a change another editor made on another topic between the time one of us started a respone in the edit box and published it. I thought moving was better than copying, so that neither of us had to update in two places. I didn't intend to hide your responses, and made clear that there was a longer discussion and where it had been moved to. I didn't change what you had written in any way when I made the move, except to insert an additional level of indentation on the Talk page. Maybe I should have transcluded on the Talk page instead of moving. I had no ulterior motive, but I apologize if it was inappropriate.
I'm also sorry if you think I'm wasting your time. I think it is a principled disagreement. I have assiduously cited authorities for the points I've made. I have explained that the court had a succession of seats between 1895 and 1971 because a succession of seats was constitutionally required by the Constitution of 1902. That constitutional requirement ended in 1971. The reason there was a succession of seats between 1971 and 2022 is because of the coincidence that there were no overlapping vacancies in that period, except in 2011; otherwise, there was only one vacancy at a time in that 40-year span. The question of succession in 2011 was answered by the General Assembly, who appoints new justices when it is in session. No one has answered the question of succession for 2022. The clerk can't answer it, OES can't answer it; it's like asking the Governor of (insert state here) whether the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as part of the Constitution. There is an entity with the legal authority to decide that question (and it's no state's governor); anyone else's opinion is an opinion, not a decision.
If Delegate Bell or anyone else I've asked at the General Assembly comes back with an answer, I will accept the answer. I have no vested interest in who between Russell and Mann succeeded Lemons or Mims. My only interest is that Wikipedia shouldn't take a side on the issue until it is resolved by someone who can resolve it. At the moment, my position is that we don't know. Senator Edwards agreed with my position: he doesn't know either; and if he doesn't know, how can we? I added the disputed tag to the article to reflect that there is a good-faith dispute about the issue; I left the summary of the dispute on the NOR noticeboard because I still think it's appropriate for impartial review. If I'm abusing Wikipedia's policies in some way, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvil (talkcontribs) 00:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
If the clerk of the court had said there was no succession of seats, would you have been more accepting of their ability to speak on the subject? We have an answer. If you can provide a source for the proposition that there is no succession (or the succession is the other way), please do so. BD2412 T 00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't have gone down the road of calling the clerk's office because I don't think the clerk has the authority to answer the question. Sure, the clerk can have an opinion, but without authority her opinion is no better than anyone else's.
Maybe I can explain better why I think your position is flawed with an example. Virginia has two U.S. Senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. Kaine is in Senate Class 1 and he's up for reelection in 2024. Warner is in Class 2 and is up in 2026. Let's pretend Warner resigns effective September 1 to be Secretary of Commerce. Kaine, who has long-Covid (sadly true), retires for health reasons effective September 15. Governor Youngkin gets to appoint someone to fill both vacancies until a special election in November 2023.[1] On October 1, Youngkin announces that he's appointed Jane Doe to the Senate; On October 5, he announces that he's appointed John Smith. Youngkin doesn't say whom he appointed Doe to replace or whom he appointed Smith to replace. But if they both run in the 2023 special election, one of them will be running for 1 year, until November 2024, and the over will be running for 3 years, until November 2026. So knowing whether Doe replaced Warner or Kaine, ditto Smith, is important. Now, who gets to answer that question? Does Smith? Doe? Warner? Kaine? The Secretary of the Senate? The Parliamentarian? The Sergeant-at-Arms? No; each of those people might have an opinion, but only Youngkin can answer it. Only Youngkin had the power to fill the vacancies, so only he can decide. Does it matter that Youngkin appointed Doe earlier than Smith? Does that mean, without Youngkin saying so, that Doe filled Warner's seat and gets to run for a 3-year term in 2023 (and Smith can only run for a 1-year term), just because Warner office left first? No. The only thing that matters is who Youngkin says replaced whom. Everything else is opinion, without legal effect.
I have provided a source for the proposition that there is no succession: Senator Edwards, who would know if the General Assembly intended one to replace a specific retiree, said he did not know that one did. I have also provided a citation for the proposition that Justice Mann replaced Justice Lemons, as you requested in the discussion on the article's Talk page; the citation will be familiar to you. Glanvil (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Your proposition is that one person not knowing outweighs another person, in fact, knowing, which is not how information works. Do you have a source for the proposition that the clerk does not have the authority to answer the question? I have worked in the court system, and my experience is otherwise. BD2412 T 01:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I have updated the List of justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia article's talk page and the original research noticeboard with information I received today confirming that Justice Mann replaced Justice Mims and Justice Russell replaced Justice Lemons, although the order of succession had nothing to do with the order the two new justices joined the court. I have removed the associated dispute tags, but I did not archive the original research noticeboard because you did not like it when I moved the discussion from there to the article's talk page. I think the issue is resolved and can be archived.Glanvil (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I am glad to have this resolved, and noted this on the board as well. BD2412 T 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Va. Code § 24.2-207". Retrieved August 9, 2022.

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022Edit

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello BD2412,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

IP Talk Page BlankingEdit

Hello! I wanted to let you know that when you're blanking old IP talk pages, such as this one, and adding the template {{OW}}, User:MalnadachBot apparently later removes that template and adds {{Blanked IP talk}}, (example here), which causes the bot to spend more time fixing a template. Is there a way you could solve this to save the bot time to do the more important job of blanking IP talk pages instead of simply replacing a template? Thanks. NytharT.C 18:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I can just add the {{Blanked IP talk}} template directly, which would save the bot the time. It wouldn't do much, though. Over the years, I have templated tens of thousands, possibly over a hundred thousand, old IP talk pages. BD2412 T 19:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! NytharT.C 19:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
When we use {{OW}} or {{Blanked IP talk}}? I think OW is still be used on shared, static IP addresses but Blanked IP talk is only used in dynamic IP addresses, I think. Thingofme (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
My expectation was that {{OW}} was being superseded by {{Blanked IP talk}} on IP talk pages generally ({{OW}} is also used on a number of registered user talk pages, where {{Blanked IP talk}} would be inapplicable). BD2412 T 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
So should we merge OW and Blanked IP talk? Or OW still used for static IP addresses, maybe? Thingofme (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, "OW" would need to remain for use on registered user talk pages. BD2412 T 00:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Registered talk page may be archived, not removed and templated. Thingofme (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP messageEdit

Hi BD2412,


For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


Hello, BD2412,

How do you keep track of your draft articles and edit them the DAY they are about to hit CSD G13 status? You may not realize how rare that is. Even experienced editors lose track of drafts they have created and once you stop getting those 5 month reminders, no one seems to remember that they were even working on draft articles since their edits to them are buried deep in Contributions lists. Kudos to you! Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Liz, it some cases it's pure luck. I do note the ones for which I get a five-month warning, though. BD2412 T 05:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I sometimes feel badly about deleting drafts for active editors but some of these editors are juggling so many drafts and main space pages that I think their deletion and requesting their restoration at WP:REFUND reminds them that these drafts are still out there when they have forgotten about them. I mean some of these editors have dozens ond dozens of drafts they have created. A different kind of editing than I do. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I have about 1,060 at the moment. BD2412 T 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow! Talk about content creation! Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Short descEdit

Hello! Just going by this. [1]

I feel like based on that, especially for the deceased, they are to be included. Now, if the description is already very long or the information in the article is unclear, I tend to avoid. However, I have noticed many articles that have had those already in there before I have made it a personal project. I try to do around 250-500 a day, give or take some for make-up days. I can tone down the amount if it is needed. Red Director (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I have no problem with it. I was just curious, as it has been coming up in my watchlist a lot. BD2412 T 19:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Mail it isEdit

Hello, BD2412. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
👍 BD2412 T 19:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


Hey, one reviewer has suggested that I archive all the sources in this featured list nomination. Do you know any bots that can help? Thanks in advance. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Okilani TinilauEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Okilani Tinilau. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Avilich (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A question about an offer to a blocked editorEdit

I was surprised to see this edit. Is there some reason that I haven't realised why that isn't to be regarded as offering proxy editing to help an editor evade a block? JBW (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: WP:PROXYING specifically allows for edits that are "either verifiable or productive", where the editor has "independent reasons for making such edits". Conveying the thoughts of the creator of a longstanding redirect in a discussion proposing to change the target of that redirect would present no verifiability concerns, and would clearly be productive to the extent that the editor who created the redirect many years before would be able to offer some insight into why it was created as such. In any case, I did not offer to make an edit on behalf of the blocked editor. I offered to convey their thoughts, which (had they expressed any) I would have paraphrased in summary form, along the lines of I asked the creator of the redirect, who is currently blocked, and they [agree/disagree/have no objection/have no opinion]. No language in the policy on proxying bars such a conveyance. BD2412 T 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't see any way of reading "have independent reasons for making such edits" as meaning anything other than independent of the blocked editor. I also don't see how your making an edit to "convey [the] thoughts" of a blocked editor, where they have expressed those "thoughts" in response to an offer to make that edit to convey their thoughts, as anything other than making that edit on behalf of that editor. However, there are far bigger things to worry about. JBW (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Having a well-informed discussion on the best use of a redirect is an independent reason in itself. BD2412 T 20:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Internationality has been acceptedEdit

Internationality, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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!

KGirl (Wanna chat?) 12:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thanks! BD2412 T 20:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"100th century" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 100th century and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 28#100th century until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I have commented in the discussion, but I am not the creator of the redirect. BD2412 T 01:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohana (surname)Edit

Please help me understand the AfD comment. I was merging content with the same title. Someone added a reference after, and it was not needed. There has been quite a bit of reverting, templating and disruptive editing. I was thinking that I was doing my job as in NPP. Bruxton (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're trolling. You should no better than to delete references for contested content. At this point, I am inclined to block you myself. BD2412 T 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I am quite shocked. Have you looked at my contributions? I am never trolling. The reference was added after you suggested it at the RFC. Perhaps next time you can discuss with me before ramping things up to blocks. I am taking a break now. Bruxton (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
It is basic policy that any editor can improve an AfD-nominated article. WP:DISCUSSAFD specifically says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples". BD2412 T 22:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I certainly know that. It looked like an attempt to thwart the redirect following your suggestion. There did not seem to be a good reason to have separate pages for the same Ohana. I have come across many pages with sections for people, buildings, works of art etc. I certainly can learn without being trouted, blocked or chastized. I thought I was improving the project, imagine my surprise when you said I was destroying it and I should be blocked. Bruxton (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If a redirect can be "thwarted" by the addition of sources demonstrating that it can be presented as a separate topic, then it absolutely should be. That is exactly what the policy promotes, and how an encyclopedia is built. BD2412 T 23:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel like you are messing with me. I combined two simple lists. The dab creator started an RFC. You went to the RFC and told the editor they should add refs - they added a single reference. Then you came to the AfD and told me I should be trouted, TBANNED and blocked because a dab page cannot have refs. So I then erase the ref because it is a dab page and you said a dab page cannot have refs. Then you threaten to take me to ani. And say I am trolling. Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
You did not delete the ref from the dab page, you deleted it from the surname page, which is supposed to have refs. This is the same article that you have nominated for deletion. This is impermissible. BD2412 T 00:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
We can go round and round with your bad faith assumptions. Me I am thinking you said, there cannot be references in a dab page. So I erased the reference from the two dab pages. That is what they were: Ohana (surname) dab page and Ohana (disambiguation). FYI I started a thread on NPP talk so that others can learn from this experience. Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Surname pages are not disambiguation pages. I apologize for assuming that you were aware of this. Now you know. BD2412 T 01:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
When they are a short list of names they are no different than a dab page. That was the reason for the redirect. Per MOS:DABNAME - a surname heading was added to the target dab like hundreds of other dab pages. This was a bad experience all around. Bruxton (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Read the last line of the section you just linked, MOS:DABNAME. Read it carefully. BD2412 T 01:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
You said yourself at the RFC it was not wrong to have it in the DAB: They sometimes get included in disambiguation pages if there are only a handful, but that is not the ideal practice. MOS:DABNAME states the same: There are two options for listing name-holders. A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page, or alternatively in sections such as People with the surname. You can point to all manner of guides to make a point. My point is you came after a good faith reviewer with threats - it did not have to be that way. Bruxton (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
As I said, I apologize for assuming that you were aware of the distinction. Having worked on disambiguation and anthroponymy for seventeen years, it is easy to forget that other editors may jump into the area with good intentions but a lack of context for specific aims of the project in these areas. BD2412 T 02:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
BD2414, and add in SIAs too - this is an area with intricate distinctions that are easy to overlook. This seems to me to be mostly a misundersanding. NPP is struggling to keep up, let's please try to not discourage anyone that is trying their best. Thank you for apologizing and please AGF. MB 02:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments above BD2412. I gave myself some time off to reflect on my own actions. I will not make the same mistake about surname pages on NPP patrol. It seems the guideline has ambiguity but I have now read the Anthroponymy project's goals. I look forward to working with you in the future. Happy Labor Day. Bruxton (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, we're good. We're all learning here, and you're doing good things for the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 17:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Straight-through processingEdit

Hello, I used to do lots of wikipedia editing years ago, but not lately, so I've forgotten the appropriate procedures. I got your details from the "recent admins" list.

Someone keeps adding reference to a James Karat on the Straight-through processing page, despite a long-ago settled rfc one the talk page Talk:Straight-through processing saying consensus is to remove all references to James Karat and the assertion that he invented straight-through processing because the information fails Wikipedia:Verifiabilityowing to the lack of sources. Every time I remove the James Karat reference, someone adds it back in, most recently user Jasperk1975.

If you can block this user and/or protect the page and/or anything else, or tell me what to do, I'd be grateful.

Thanks NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. Reverted and protected. We'll see what happens. BD2412 T 06:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Barbara DawsonEdit

BD - please go see what I've done so far with the Barbara Dawson BLP - the sources are off the charts reliable - the woman is notable. Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Good work, thanks. BD2412 T 04:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Clean upEdit

Can you please clean up this Pooja Hegde article. (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what needs cleaning up here. BD2412 T 04:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

New article...Edit

A new article, Geoffrey Norris, if you have a chance to do some mass-linking. This one was a lesser effort of mine, mainly because coverage was rather limited, though I think (?) his importance as a scholar still covers his notability. Aza24 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I will have a look in the morning! BD2412 T 04:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is done. I only found about 75 more instances. BD2412 T 16:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Lovely, thank you as always. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure! BD2412 T 00:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Eli N. EvansEdit

 On 8 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eli N. Evans, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eli N. Evans authored three books about the culture and history of Jews in the American South? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eli N. Evans. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eli N. Evans), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. BD2412 T 00:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


I was fiddling with a userspace draft a couple months ago, and looking at it again I think it's good to go. Can you merge it over the article, to keep the edit history together? CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. BD2412 T 17:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!!--CNMall41 (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Assassin's Creed InfinityEdit

Hello, BD2412,

I hope you are having a good weekend. I just wanted to remind you that if you restore CSD G13 stale drafts at WP:REFUND, you need to make a minor edit to the page or the draft immediately becomes eligible for deletion again. It's easy to forget to do this edit as it's only required for G13 restoration. Many admins who work at REFUND make use of a script, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper, that takes care of details like this. It can help simplify things if you expect to do more page restorations. I actually think that REFUND is one of the more enjoyable admin tasks out there as there is always the hope that a restored draft can eventually make it into main space and become a new article! Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: thanks, this is a new area I am taking up, and I was not aware of that rule. BD2412 T 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"Dreamland (upcoming thriller film)" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dreamland (upcoming thriller film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Dreamland (upcoming thriller film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"Männerbünde" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Männerbünde and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Mannerbunde until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


Thor 1 (mcu).jpg This image looks great. Can we use it as the official image. It's mcu Thor s symbolic look. And he is clearly portrayed. This image has all the features required So why remove it?? The discussion hasn't been moving forward. That's why I'm putting this here. Sorry to bother you. Lord kai07 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

My talk page is not the page to seek consensus on this. It is up to the community, not to me as an individual. BD2412 T 03:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying sir. The page seemed pretty inactive. Hence I suggested it here. Lord kai07 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion there, and it was quite active. BD2412 T 04:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"template out ancient IP talk page messages"Edit

BD, you're pretty clever with technology--is there a way for me to filter out your edits from Recent changes? I know what you do and I don't need to see it, and right now we're under another mass attack so I'm scouring only for four-digit changes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there some reason for which you are watching lots of old IP talk pages? BD2412 T 01:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread. Not your watchlist. BD2412 T 01:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: I just realized that I had somehow unchecked "Minor edit". How about now? BD2412 T 01:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Ha, sorry, ran off to get the kids their Jello. I'll see tomorrow, or whenever--thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
No worries. BD2412 T 01:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming redirectsEdit

I know I'm heavily non-neutral here but I really don't see a consensus to delete there. Almost none of the delete !voters actually engaged with any of the arguments for keeping, despite being prompted to do so. I see a consensus to delete only if noses are counted, so please reconsider. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? There isn't consensus unless the delete !voters engage with your badgering?! Even then, that's simply not true. There was plenty of discussion about a few different aspects of these redirects, but at the end of the day the vast majority of editors disagree with you. BD2412, thanks for stepping up and helping out at RfD. It's always nice to see an old familiar face coming back around. I know closing discussions is an often thankless task that often goes unrewarded (here is Exhibit A), but that doesn't mean it's not appreciated. -- Tavix (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not about agreeing with me, it's about engaging with the arguments and refuting them which (as was pointed out) almost nobody even attempted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
...which is false, as I pointed out with diffs. -- Tavix (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: The discussion was largely an exercise in people talking past each other on both sides. However, editors having expressed their opinion are not then required to further engage with arguments with which they disagree. BD2412 T 18:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
In which case the only possible conclusion is no consensus, not consensus for deletion of all the redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The small number of editors who agreed with your assessment clearly indicates that your pageview argument is unpersuasive to the majority of the community. Consensus is very clear at this point, and has only been solidified by the outcome of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. This is veering towards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. BD2412 T 20:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog driveEdit

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • 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.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

AWB probEdit

In this edit, AWB broke the hatnotes because it doesn't know about {{hatnote group}}. There is a Phab ticket open on this, but with no one working on AWB I don't know when it will be fixed. We have to watch out for this. MB 16:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: is {{hatnote group}} a new thing? I've never seen that before. BD2412 T 17:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not new, but it is little used. I think putting hatnotes together in a paragraph sensibly condenses them to save valuable real estate in a prime location. Others think individual hatnotes need to start on their own line for clarify. There is no consensus for widespread use. There was a discussion recently on a dab TP that fizzed out. It would probably need an RFC to make this a standard. MB 18:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There have been two discussions about the template, in July at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Multiple hatnotes which didn't come to any conclusion, and Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 6#Combining hatnotes onto a single line from 2016 which found consensus preferred separate lines for each hatnote, certainly when there are only 2 (this gets weaker the more lines there are). It's use appears to have expanded somewhat since July though when someone commented there were only 46 transclusions, whereas there are now 126. Personally, I think one hatnote per line is generally clearer and thus more helpful to readers, but I'm not going to say there are never any exceptions. Given the last consensus was several years ago and wasn't particularly well attended it is probably worthwhile seeing whether it still holds. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Surreal Barnstar
I think you should be commended for having the patience and time to go through every U.S. Senator's last name and adding disambiguation/category pages for each of them. Thank you so much! That Coptic Guy 03:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks! Actually, they also cover other countries that have senators. BD2412 T 16:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Films based on Marvel Comics characters before the MCU has been nominated for deletionEdit


Category:Films based on Marvel Comics characters before the MCU has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. ★Trekker (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)