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

055-056-057-058-059-060-061-062-063-064-065-066-067

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: Lucien F. Burpee has been accepted

Lucien F. Burpee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 03:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have AI draft mergers

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merging merge discussions with AfD#Have an AI do the merges

No, but have AI draft the mergers.

I think that you are right about AI being very good at rewriting the existing material from two articles into one. However, “AI” is not an accountable editor. Your proposal just needs the word “do” changed to “draft”.

I wonder whether this should be a suggestion on how to complete a merge?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be an excellent methodology, but would be met with reflexive opposition. BD2412 T 00:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hiram E. Hadley has been accepted

Hiram E. Hadley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 01:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Late Antiquity closing

Please go back to this one and reconsider your "no consensus" close per the n-grams, especially during the 21st century. The n-grams directly show the growing uppercase usage throughout the decades, and there is no doubt that uppercasing is not only the trend but now has overwhelming evidence. In, rereading, the discussion please note that some of the opposed editors are using the things like Jstor analysis of lowercasing in sources from pre-2000, when casing was mixed, and not the obvious 21st century academic and cultural trend. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If uppercasing is the trend then it will become easier to make the case for it in the future. As of this time, there is a longstanding status quo that remains in place absent consensus to change it, an actual absence of consensus to change it, and a discussion that has died out, with no indication that further relisting would change the outcome. BD2412 T 02:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Erastus Payson Carpenter

Could I please have some help with this declined draft? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jerkmate

Dabmasterars has asked for a deletion review of Jerkmate. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. BD2412 T 20:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Broken File

Hi, during your cleanup edit of Media in Pristina, you accidentally broke a file by removing a space in the file name. Please see if you can add a filter to your software so that it will not change file names in the future, thanks. Surajr7 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Surajr7: It is infinitely better to fix the filename so that it does not present a false positive for a common grammatical error. BD2412 T 01:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That happened again. If such things irk you so much, you could fix the filenames. Your carelessness in ignoring a preview irks the rest of us. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: I am certainly willing to engage constructively in developing technical solutions to the problem of filenames presenting common typographical errors, but I will not respond to emotional outbursts or personal attacks. BD2412 T 13:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cause célèbre (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cause célèbre (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause célèbre (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in the discussion. I was initially inclined not to care either way, but then I found additional uses of the term, so have changed my vote to keep. BD2412 T 17:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opry Band has been accepted

Opry Band, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 00:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on WP:FORBESCON usage

Hi, hope you are doing well. I wanted to ask—can we use a WP:FORBESCON article like this if the same information is also covered by other reliable sources like this? Thanks in advance. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would think we would just use the more reliable source in that case. BD2412 T 15:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of deans of the William & Mary Law School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of deans of the William & Mary Law School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deans of the William & Mary Law School 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Swordfish121,641 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the Anglo-Powhatan Wars?

I see that the article lists it as 1609? But John Smith first attacked the Powhatans in 1607. Historyguy1138 (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with that event, so I would just say to go with what the best sources say. BD2412 T 15:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

May 2026 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, 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) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Idolization has been accepted

Idolization, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

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 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.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 18:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James A. C. Bond has been accepted

James A. C. Bond, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 15:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Turian#Requested move 1 April 2026

Is this like rage bait? The "early established" consensus was four people vibing without any evidence and with no regard to the established guideline of considering usage and long-term significance etc. They get told how this was wrong in detail, and there is no factual response - we see no substantial new information on usage or long-term significance. Most of the responses amounted to procedural musing about how we should disregard everything else that doesn't fit in with their assertions. And this is supposed to be an actual WP:Consensus? At this point, we might as well rewrite that policy to just explicitly allow for personal feelings and be done with it. This has to be rage bait... --Joy (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely within your rights to challenge this outcome at Wikipedia:Move review. BD2412 T 23:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be taking this bikeshedding to a whole new level. I'm depressed enough from the fact that we as administrators can't seem to have a common understanding of a policy like the consensus policy, and you don't even feel this is worthy of discussion. --Joy (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to relitigate the discussion here. It was pointed out correctly that there is one thing in the encyclopedia that is entirely and solely titled "Turian", and that is sufficient. My advice to you would be not become so emotionally tied to a rather obscure title discussion as to become depressed by the outcome of that discussion. BD2412 T 19:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the latter is easier said than done :) as that factoid has never been sufficient according to the spirit and letter of WP:PTOPIC, let alone today, with the benefit of so many years of hindsight. --Joy (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

James Lang Campbell

Just a heads up that I am working on Mungana affair and as James Lang Campbell was the Royal Commissioner into the political corruption case I may add some info to Draft:James Lang Campbell and hopefully get it published (I don't really know the draft process, I am a bit old school). Commander Keane (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commander Keane: By all means, please do! I would very much appreciate it, as I have been letting this draft languish. BD2412 T 15:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are sure he is American, as per your recent edit? I do see he was born in Houston and Killellan in Scotland. Commander Keane (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected - it is passingly rare that I start a draft on a non-American judge. BD2412 T 02:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Holt Jr. has been accepted

Jack Holt Jr., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 03:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jose Luis Buitron

Hey, BD2412,

Just a reminder, please make an edit to any expired draft you choose to restore so that the draft doesn't appear as eligible for a CSD G13 deletion again. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Marx (2nd nomination)

What sources did you find that I didn't? As I exhaustively proved already, every source in the article is a passing mention and/or about a work that isn't notable in its own right. Which sources are WP:SIGCOV of him specifically? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion on the AfD page. BD2412 T 00:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm topic-banned from AFD except through creation, that's why I brought it here. I just don't think anyone should get a free pass on WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE if the sources aren't there, and you completely bypassed any mention of sources whatsoever and just said WP:ITSNOTABLE. Why did you do that? You of all editors should know better. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NCREATIVE isn't ironclad. I can name tons of subjects who met WP:NCREATIVE but still got deleted because the sourcing wasn't there. Why do you keep dodging the question on sources, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the sources. The Dan Daley book provides more coverage than you represent in your nom, and is a substantial book in print from a regular publishing house. Other coverage in the aggregate recognizes this subject as an important presence in the field of country steel guitar. BD2412 T 01:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What "other coverage"? Is being name-dropped for half a sentence "significant coverage" now? I didn't realize Wikipedia policy changed overnight. Which sources are significant coverage?

Also, terms like "award winning" and "influential" are straight up WP:PEACOCK words that get thrown around all the time. Just because five sources call a guy "influential" doesn't mean he automatically is the next Hendrix. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do sources not matter when used to demonstrate that someone is influential? I would submit that all persons holding the position of musical director of the Grand Ole Opry are likely notable, and those who are noted to have recorded and toured with numerous highly notable artists are exceedingly so. BD2412 T 01:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, which sources say anything more about him than that he existed? Which ones are sigcov? Because you keep dodging that. Every single source is just a name-drop and nothing more. Which. Sources. ARE. SIGCOV?

Blair Daly wrote tons of songs, yet his article was deleted. Milton Sledge has played with Garth Brooks since 1989, and also played with tons of other artists, yet has never had an article or even so much as a redirect. There are tons of names I've seen on tons of musical projects dating back decades, yet they're just bit players in the background who never got a single whiff of notability. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss where I said The Dan Daley book provides more coverage than you represent in your nom, and is a substantial book in print from a regular publishing house? BD2412 T 01:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's still only one source. Everything else isn't even a drop in the bucket. Also, what journalistic cred does Dan Daley have? I skimmed the book and found scads of typos, so I really don't trust it. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see typos disqualify an author. The book blurb says: "His writing has appeared in USA Today, New York Daily News, and Billboard", and the book in question was well-reviewed by the Los Angeles Times and by Kirkus Reviews. BD2412 T 01:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Dan Daley" + "USA Today" just gave me articles from USA Today that referred to unrelated people named "Dan Daley", none as a byline. Likewise, I did an extensive search of billboard.com and World Radio History but could not find a single Dan Daley byline among them. It shouldn't be this hard to prove that someone wrote for Billboard and USA Today. Can you find something other than the book jacket proving as such? People lie on book jackets all the time. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have no issue, then, with the points that the book itself was well-reviewed by high-profile reviewers? Or will you next question the reliability of the LA Times and Kirkus Reviews? BD2412 T 01:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written books by nobodies can still be reviewed by reputable reviewers. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The book is well-reviewed, though. Kirkus Reviews calls it "a smart look at the business end of America's most popular musical genre" and a "solid plumbing of the forces driving a dominant and uniquely American industry". If you have a problem with that, I suppose you could always contact Kirkus Reviews and ask them to retract the review. BD2412 T 02:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't change the fact that it's only one reliable source at best, if it even is reliable at all. Every article should have at least three reliable third-party sources. What other sources in the article do you think are reliable and significant? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're continually questioning the reliability of a book published by a regular publishing house and well-reviewed by reliable reviewers leads me to doubt that discussing other sources will be anything more than a waste of my time. In any case WP:THREE is an essay, and one with which there is reason to disagree. A plethora of reliable sources containing a sentence or two about a subject lends to notability, and failing to recognize that only deprives the encyclopedia of information useful to the reader. BD2412 T 02:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument.

Also, that got out of hand. I should've stopped responding about five replies ago, and I apologize for that. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable. People do get deep into these discussions. BD2412 T 02:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of the Supreme Court edit

I'm happy to omit Vice Presidents in the side mention of Catholics who have held executive power, but your revert did not remove them, it just reverted to the awkward phrasing that I was trying to avoid with JD Vance mentioned parenthetically. Did you perhaps mean to revert further back? Magidin (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Magidin: I have removed all vice-president mentions. BD2412 T 01:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Thanks! Magidin (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirects you have created have 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/2026 May 9 § Business organisation until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirects you have created have 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/2026 May 10 § Israel–Iran war until a consensus is reached. LIrala (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jule W. Felton has been accepted

Jule W. Felton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 17:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rosa 'Emily Gray' has been accepted

Rosa 'Emily Gray', which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 02:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something missing in further cleanup

Action: Undo the mishandling of cheema redirection as it violating the WP:R saction

may I get your attention over content dispute and undiscussed procedural move of Cheema (surname) to what it now being forcely changed to Cheema (clan), Yet this may include the old paraphrasing which only focus on the individual bestow the Cheema surname which maybe or might not belong to Jat community as the article say without any roundabout of WP:CT/SA, whereas it have nothing to do with Cheema clan which the previous user try to hijack up with backend fourth on simple wiki also~2026-28614-89 (talk)

Per Wikipedia:Solicited administrator actions as noted at the top of this page, I do not engage in solicited administrator actions to avoid the appearance of an expectation of bias. This seems like an issue to take to a general purpose noticeboard. It is, in any event, well outside my area of comfortable expertise. BD2412 T 01:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to add content to a wiki article

I dont want to make an account or learn coding enough to do it. I have a great photo of an animal and dont know how to send it to you to be added to the article. ~2026-28589-14 (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a photo that you took and that you own, I believe you can use the Commons upload wizard with or without an account. BD2412 T 15:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Benjamin Franklin Wing

Could I please have some help woth sources and beefing up to get this subject across the line. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure

Who should close this RfC and apply the changes? Could you please possibly do so as an uninvolved editor? Discussion wrapped up over a month ago, and there is now a clear consensus (YES votes + arguments). Israell (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Israell: I believe that I have previously been involve in discussing this topic, and therefore cannot close a discussion as an uninvolved editor. I would suggest Wikipedia:Closure requests. BD2412 T 15:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You did not discuss it on the talk page of that artist—only on your own talk page. And you then composed an essay on songwriting credits (in general—not that particular artist).

The WP:CR page says: "Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines). Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious."

The consensus seems obvious to me, but I'd rather another editor close it and implement the decision. Israell (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My previous activity is sufficient to make me uncomfortable taking the role of closer in a discussion of the subject. BD2412 T 16:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The RfC is now closed. Israell (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello BD2412,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Emotional instability" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Emotional instability 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/2026 May 16 § Emotional instability until a consensus is reached. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 07:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Geography Barnstar

		The Geography Barnstar
		Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh/Districts update - 2026. Arjunaraoc (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting – thanks! BD2412 T 01:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coming?

Wikimedia UK's Big Birthday Party 6 pm London 3rd July... Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Kennish has been accepted

John Kennish, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

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 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.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 00:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lower protection for COVID-19 pandemic in China?

You applied ECP in 2022 to this article. Would you be willing to lower the protection level to semi or pending changes? I think the trade-off of getting more updates to the article vs potential disruption now favours the former, as the article needs some TLC. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: Done. Reduced to autoconfirmed protection. BD2412 T 20:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"GPGPT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect GPGPT 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/2026 May 26 § GPGPT until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 20:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied in the discussion. The redirect is indeed something of an anomaly. BD2412 T 20:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC

Apologies if I tend to come off as abrasive in some of my replies. It's certainly not personal, and I'm working on it. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I have been here for 20+ years, and have seen plenty of strong feelings about plenty of controversial topics. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My only involvement in this discussion was to relist it for further discussion one time. I have no further interest. BD2412 T 20:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry to bother you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that's my job. BD2412 T 20:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]