User talk:BD2412

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:BD2412bot)
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)

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)