User talk:BD2412

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.

(Thanks to Alan Liefting, via BMK)

Status: Active. bd2412 T (e)

By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):
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

Draft:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming[edit]

Could you please move this to main space? It's been disambiguated. Abyssal (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  •  Done bd2412 T 13:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Information icon Please do not edit the name of files in articles as you did to Ramakrishna Math and Mission, Bhubaneswar, it breaks the link to the file. I have corrected the mistake. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "Show preview" button is right next to the "Publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask on my talk page, or to post at the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor 02:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


Hello. I am messaging you to make an emergency block request for user:Bigdick247365 because he made a terroristic threat. CLCStudent (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't see a "threat" there, but this is clearly an account created solely for vandalism. bd2412 T 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Allen3 article[edit]

I finally got around to writing another article from the ones started by Allen3. Please delete User:Allen3/blakely as it has been developed into William G. Blakely. MB 04:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! bd2412 T 02:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
But you didn't delete it. That's my tracking mechanism (the redlinks here). MB 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Oops, yes, deleted. bd2412 T 04:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you delete some more that have been made into articles by others: User:Allen3/Bayard, User:Allen3/churchill. These are just redirects now and will make the list a little more red. Thanks. MB 14:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


You added a red link to a disambiguation page over a year ago. I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Vchimpanzee: The link in question was not red, and the change you made to it was not a "fix". Please see WP:D#HOWTODAB. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It was not red because I decided to add a redirect. Maybe I should have just done that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee:, per WP:INTDABLINK, when we make an intentional link to a disambiguation page, we use a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect to indicate to the tools that count needed disambiguation repairs that it is intentional, and not an error requiring repair. bd2412 T 02:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I get it now. That is exactly what the edit summary said, but when there was a red link, my first thought was to correct it by linking to the actual list. But that shouldn't have been a red link to begin with. I just decided later to create the redirect, which I now realize should have been my first action.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico/mergerdrop[edit]

BD2412, Talk:African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico/mergerdrop was created in 2007. It should be deleted now, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep it, but no harm in archiving it rather than deleting it. bd2412 T 01:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I had an idea...[edit]


I had an idea and just wanted to run it by you...

Whenever there is a change on a list of presidential(ly) appointed judges like a resignation, elevation, etc, I feel it's important to note as such in whatever list.

The following are examples: Trump appointees: Quattlebaum: Elevated

W. Bush appointees: Engelhardt, St. Eve, Thapar, Erickson, etc: Elevated

Obama appointees: Sharp, Forrest: Resigned

I realize they don't "technically" end senior status so it's not a "valid" reason however, it gives a reason none-the-less as to how/why their service may have ended. I don't see it uniformly being done yet, but didn't know if it might be a possibility in the future. We can easily leave it as an en dash and that's fine too; my only reasoning is to perhaps orient a reader who may be unfamiliar and/or not know about FJC...

Just a thought. What do you think? Good idea, bad idea, leave it alone?

Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a fine idea, but a big undertaking. bd2412 T 21:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess at Glendale Veterans War Memorial[edit]

Here is what happened. I created that article in my user space some time ago. What I intended to do, was to use that user space to start that other thing, and then believed that I was just changing the name in my user space. Whooops. That what I get for thinking. So thanks for streightening that out for me. For all of us. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again, my intention was NOT to go public with List of trial films until I had done more work on it, I really thought everything I was doing was somewhere in my user domain. or whatever. But now it is done, it looks a bit ragged but there it is and I'll just work on it in situ. Thank you again, again. Carptrash (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I made a few tweaks to it also. I would recommend having a single "actors" column, rather than two labelled "actor". bd2412 T 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

World Heritage Site[edit]

Given that the article was only moved in May, on the strength of only three supports (one of whom has since changed their mind), after 15 years at the World Heritage Site title, shouldn't the default "no consensus" be to revert to that long-term title? Also, please could you explain how you evaluated the arguments, because your close seems to set a new precedent (yet again) for how we evaluate what proportion of sources are needed to establish capitalisation. We already changed from "consistently capitalised" to "substantial majority", and we can't keep flip flopping like this. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If I were merely voting in the discussion, I would support the move, but that does not render the existing title impermissible. We have no set rule on how long an article must be at a particular title before it can be considered the stable title, but this is not a case where there was an immediate effort to reverse the previous discussion. The fact that the previous discussion drew low participation does not invalidate it; any editor watching the page or WP:RM could have participated at that time. bd2412 T 22:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The title was fully capitalised for many years, as it is now lowercase this creates inconsistency with other articles and categories. Do you think it would be reasonable to move these for consistency even though the close was no consensus? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be a topic for an RFC on how we enforce those rules. bd2412 T 22:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a lot of sympathy for Amakuru‘s argument for “no consensus” defaulting to the long term stable title. If that is not a winning argument, it creates incentive to edit war to create instability for the current title. A complication is that WHs was the title for the first four versions for five months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for your agreement, SmokeyJoe, even though we didn't see eye-to-eye on every aspect of this RM. The rules call for us to revert to the "long-term stable title" in the event of a no consensus close, and it's frankly a bit absurd to claim that the name signed off a few months ago with barely any discussion is more long-term and stable than the 15-year title which nobody ever questioned at all until the middle of this year. This doesn't need an RFC, it just needs a bit of common sense from the closer, who is an experienced admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    As an experienced admin, I can tell you that reverting to the "long-term stable title" is the resolution if the current title is the result of an edit war, not a previous consensus-based process. Otherwise, any person dissatisfied with the outcome of any RM regarding a longstanding title could reverse that outcome merely by starting a new RM proposal in the next few months and having in a lack of consensus, which would be absurd. Your problem is not with my close, but with the close by User:Anarchyte of the previous discussion. I would suggest asking them to reverse their close based on the paucity of participation. It is not my place to reverse the determination of consensus by a previous admin. bd2412 T 15:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My broad reading of it all:
First four stub versions, all 19 March 2002. [1] were "World Heritage site"
Fifth version was an expansion and minor wikification, still a "stub", 19:04, 17 August 2002, by Montrealais (talk · contribs), re-styled to "World Heritage Site"
RM 15 May 2018 3-0, 24 May 2018 closer Anarchyte (talk · contribs) moved it to "World Heritage site"
The above RM was challenged on the talk page 26 June 2018 at Talk:World_Heritage_site#Name_adjustment.
Talk:World_Heritage_site#Requested_move_27_August_2018. This was a highly contested long discussion, closed "no consensus", after an NAC close was relisted after a MRV discussion.
Late in the discussion, User:Amakuru 12:33, 13 September 2018, had made the argument ""World Heritage Site" (the long-term stable title until a few months ago)", but this was not well discussed, I guess not well enough for the closer to User:BD2412 be to obliged to address it.
I think it is very easy to challenge WHs as the long term stable version. I think it is very easy to assert that WHS is the first non-stub version and and easy to assert that it is the long term stable version. Personally I support high weight being given to the first non-stub version, as it provides the least opportunity for gaming.
User:BD2412 is well within his right to decline to act. The question could be resolved in a fresh RM, which should wait for two months to begin unless permission is given by either User:BD2412 or User:Anarchyte. Alternative, a consensus could be sought immediately at WP:MRV, where the MRV nomination should outline this history and review the multiple RMs and pages moves of the page. I recommend MRV, as this is very much a back-room discussion matter that disrupts the article talk page as a forum for improving the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As I implied in this discussion, I do not have a strong opinion about this, so if there is consensus to overturn the RM I closed four months ago, I have no problem with it. However, the "long standing title" is World Heritage Site (capitalised), so if there is a lack of consensus and my closure has been adequately refuted, it should default back to what it was in May. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not saying that the original discussion was not closed correctly. Any editor could have participated in or extended the first discussion. If the first discussion had ended up looking like the second, there would have been no consensus to move the page in the first place. My point is that the "long standing title" rule only applies until there has been a consensus to change the title. Once a new consensus is established, as it was in the first discussion, a later no-consensus discussion does not overturn that. bd2412 T 11:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
And, to be clear on my part, I absolutely concur that the original close was not incorrect. It was fine based on the evidence at the time. But things have moved on. And your interpretation on a "new consensus" is simply incorrect. If a year had passed, or even six months, I would agree. The new title would be stable. But this was questioned almost immediately and the second discussion was clearly a corollary of the first. As such they should be considered together, and the "long-term stable title" is unambiguously not the current one, notwithstanding the RM on the subject a couple of months ago. Any other interpretation gives the greenlight for slipping any number of no-consensus moves under the radar by listing them in the middle of the summer holidays and waiting for a low turnout RM to reverse a long term title, which is effectively what's happened here. From what Anarchyte and Smokey Joe say above, I think they concur with that interpretation, and this should now be reverted back to the previous stable title.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I would disagree with the characterization that the original discussion was under the radar due to summer holidays. A discussion can go unnoticed any time, but it is often the case that a low-participation discussion merely reflects that the usual RM participants don't care one way or the other about the proposal in question. There were some better-attended discussions during that period (e.g., Talk:Longfellow (disambiguation), Talk:GJ 1245). I would also point out that in the most recent discussion there were as many people in opposition to restoring the previous title as there were in support of it. This is by no means a slam-dunk proposition. bd2412 T 00:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Amakuru, I do not agree with badgering User:bd2412. User:bd2412 made a completely proper and easily defensible decision at Talk:World_Heritage_site#Requested_move_27_August_2018, and is justified in not reviewing the longer history or RETAIN considerations due to these considerations not being much evident in that discussion.
I find this very reminiscent of my first post on yogurt, here. The difference between WHS and Yogurt is that WHS has not been subject to long running bad behaviours. I note that edit warring, or even talk page disruption at Talk:WHS, will increase the chance of it being moved back to WHS, and this should be better resolved rationally.
Above, User:Anarchyte 07:24, 25 September 2018, gives sufficient implied permission to open a new RM to move it back to WHS as the first non-stub version, which shouldbe the default given the current state of "no consensus".
I recommend again WP:MR, not to challenge either close per se, but to review the status quo versus the two RM discussions together, and rest of the talk page and the article history. I think this is squarely in scope of MR, speaking as someone involved in MR since its beginning. WP:MR is a very good forum for these nuanced procedural concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the advice, SmokeyJoe. I'll file an MR later. And apologies BD if I have badgered you. That was not my intention, and my querying of your good faith close is only because I disagreed with it, not because you did anything wrong. I'll leave you in peace now. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine being badgered. I think a properly framed MR is a reasonable way to resolve this. bd2412 T 01:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sort names[edit]

If I went and put tens of thousands of Eastern name order Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Hungarian names in the sort name categories, despite me not believing them to be sort names, would it be difficult to sieve them back out at a later date? I want to create all the missing redirects but not putting them in any category would make them much harder to find later on. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that Hungarian names were an issue. With respect to sieving such names out, the way to do that would be to create a maintenance category to accompany the sort name category (perhaps a set of them for the different nationalities). I don't think I would make a priority of it. bd2412 T 19:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I've changed my mind. I cannot bring myself to add it to Abe Noriyuki when Abe, Noriyuki already exists. No category is better than the wrong category. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In theory, all redirects should be categorized somehow. Perhaps a different categorization scheme altogether is needed for these. bd2412 T 22:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Charm (physics) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Charm (physics). Since you had some involvement with the Charm (physics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Widefox; talk 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The Advocate[edit]

Hey there, I see you are also disambiguating links to The Advocate after the article move. I wanted to let you know that I've come across a few links that actually should have been to other disambiguations, in particular The Advocate (Louisiana) and The Advocate (Stamford). Though it's pretty easy to tell if the LGBT mag is correct based on the context of the section/article or the url when present. Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 22:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I am primarily looking at articles in LGBT categories or with LGBT terms, so I would expect those to be minimal in my run. bd2412 T 23:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Acroterion#online? its urgent[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Acroterion#online? its urgent. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • This has been taken care of. Kindly disregard the above message. Also, apologies for the confusion/mess. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the update. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


So, what do you want me to do? Open ANOTHER move request? What happened to consensus being rooted in policy, not votes? The evidence is on the table...the 'policy-based' result is clear. In the meantime, we are using a crap name that does not even appear in the sources the article was based on, and information about Japanese varieties of these melons is forced to exist under a 'Korean' label. At least you should have moved it to the scientific name...ANYTHING! Instead, we have a mess, and politics have won out over rationality. Why exactly have you made yourself a party to this travesty? RGloucester 03:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't "want" you to do anything. The current name is permissible as a name that does appear in sources. I would suggest moving on to other topics. If this page move is worth carrying out, eventually someone else will come along with the same idea. bd2412 T 03:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I went through a lot of effort to attain this picture. A kind farmer from Shizuoka uploaded it for me.
I'm afraid that won't cut it, dear fellow. Perhaps you find me some peculiarity, easy to toss into some sort of quarantine bin, where I can be ignored and otherwise disparaged for no apparent reason. However, you cannot deny that the present title is not acceptable under WP:AT. If you try to say otherwise, you're marking yourself as one of the crazed political editors who puts his or her own personal opinion ahead of the good of the encylopaedia...and that's not an acceptable stance on the part of an administrator. You can propose a course of action to get this sorted, or I will take my own action to do so. I have no interest in casting aside the hours I spent translating Japanese sources, sifting through journals, and indeed, contacting a Japanese grower of these melons, so as to be able to put decent pictures in the article. This is the definition of an epistemic violence...something you should think on before continuing with this facade of neutral aloofness. RGloucester 03:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)