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

Status:Active.T

This administrator prefers not to fulfill solicited administrative actions, perWikipedia: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

	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.BD2412T01:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to have some help with this submitted draft on Florida's new supreme court justice.FloridaArmy (talk)14:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: I will work this up further now that it is in mainspace.BD2412T23:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin S. Baker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412T20:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onEdge of Twilight (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)18:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers!BD2412T18:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of thetop AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk)17:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks!BD2412T19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it possible that you could delete the revisions on my user page that are older thanthis revision? I ask because they used to be deleted, but they re-appeared after youundeleted my user page after I requested it atWikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I don't mean to criticise you or anyone else as I forgot to ask to keep them deleted, but yeah. There's no personal information so no oversight is needed but I would be grateful if you or someone else could delete it. Thanks. ―Panamitsu(talk)02:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Panamitsu: Done, cheers!BD2412T23:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! ―Panamitsu(talk)23:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to watch this guy a bit longer. I smell dirty socks. His very first edit was a comment at another user's talk page requesting unbanning of that user. That in itself sets off the alarms. The fact that he is trying rapidly pad his edit count by adding judges one at a time instead of all at once has also aroused my suspicion. I will wait a day or two, then will go to the administrator noticeboard. Just giving you a heads up.Safiel (talk)23:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Safiel: That is a sound assessment.BD2412T23:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List&diff=prev&oldid=1335042993

I find it puzzling, to be honest.

Linking the word "set" to the mathematics concept is obviously wrong.

"Lists are "most frequently a tool", and "one does not read but only uses a list: one looks up the relevant information in it, but usually does not need to deal with it as a whole"" -> This is poetic and doesn't belong in the lead, it's very unclear and hard to understand as well.

"It has been observed that, with a few exceptions, "the scholarship on lists remains fragmented". David Wallechinsky, a co-author of The Book of Lists, described the attraction of lists as being "because we live in an era of overstimulation, especially in terms of information, and lists help us in organizing what is otherwise overwhelming"" -> This doesn't respect NPOV at all with the current way it's worded.Aim551551551 (talk)01:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A list is absolutely a mathematical set. It is the set of the number of things on the list. As for the quotes, the NPOV concern would be in deviating from quotations to push a point of view. The quotes say what they say. SeeWP:BRD; if you change longstanding text, and your change is reverted, your next step is to initiate a discussion and seek consensus for your position.BD2412T01:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to concede the other two.

"Lists are "most frequently a tool", and "one does not read but onlyuses a list: one looks up the relevant information in it, but usually does not need to deal with it as a whole"."

This is a poetic, sloppily written, and confusing lead. Would it be a good idea to clarify this part? If so, how?Aim551551551 (talk)02:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that it is important that lists are predominately a tool (one can write a list purely for entertainment, but a checklist or shopping list or a directory is functional, and as much a tool as a set of instructions is). I would not object to moving the second portion of the quote from the lede to the body, but it expresses a point that should be in the article somewhere.BD2412T02:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some of these changes.BD2412T02:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, we are all good and set for these articles. Thanks!Aim551551551 (talk)03:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cheers!BD2412T03:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this on purpose? it seems kind of like weird ai nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinz_Nigg&curid=56466164&diff=1335222158&oldid=1316618183Mandlerex (talk)02:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandlerex:, yes, fixing typos in punctuation is on purpose. They are an eyesore and detract from the appearance of professionalism in the encyclopedia as a whole. Also, it has to be done manually, as there are too many exceptions for an automated process to catch (scientific and mathematical formulae, names of image files, quoted social media posts, etc.). As for the em-dash specifically, that is added by AWB as one of its background automatic fixes.BD2412T02:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. What I thought was an em-dash, is actually an en-dash, and I thought it should have been a hyphen, but I guess you learn something new everyday.Mandlerex (talk)03:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I generally only quibble over en-dashes in date ranges.BD2412T03:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 28 § Draft articles on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Mclay1 (talk)09:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is just a renaming request. I have no preference. Cheers!BD2412T13:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

William Allen (Massachusetts judge), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412T20:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD,

Can you handle the institution of anWP:ANI complaint (about serious personal attacks). Where the reported user is bizarrely edit warring to remove it ([1],[2],[3]). (We are likely on bannable grounds already.)

ThanksGotitbro (talk)08:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro:, perWikipedia:Solicited administrator actions, referenced at the top of this page, I prefer not to undertake solicited actions to avoid the appearance of bias in favor of editors making such requests. I note that the edit-warring editor has already been indef-blocked.BD2412T14:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed that. Was notifying the last active sysop at the board of basic procedural vios encountered while filing a report. Thanks for updating me on the status of the report.

CheersGotitbro (talk)14:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. That nom actually went through? The Page Curation tool indicated that nothing happened. I understand it's been broken for a while.Iseult ^Δxtalk to me16:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That, I have no knowledge of. I have not had problems creating RfD's, though.BD2412T20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Catron, 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 asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412T01:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Law Barnstar
		For your work onWilliam Allen (Massachusetts judge).Bearian (talk)04:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Many thanks! If filling out articles on state supreme court justices is of interest to you, we about 750 more waiting in the wings atWikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices. Cheers!BD2412T13:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412T02:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I am far from being an expert of en.wiki, but—to avoid any edit war or heated discussion with the user who reverted my edits—I would like to ask for an external opinion. Precisely, I am asking if the following edits (reverts) inthis article might be considered "vandalism". The sources I quoted were about the topic, or at least I supposed they were:

• in the first case it is a still accepted scale of "normal distribution" of world human males statures, by authoritative anthropologists under the direction of the main Author quoted in the tmp (whilst the user who reverted the edit wrote that "120 cm is not comparable to 190 cm": the subject of this revert is not related at all to what is stated in the source and reported in the article, but just a personal comment/opinion without any source);
• in the second one, it is a recent study by some scientists anthropologists concerning the human distribution of average statures in the world, so I am not able to understand the subject of the revert: "Interesting but off-topic".

(On it.wiki, with the help of the Community and my own work, the article "Statura" (Stature/Height) is "featured") Thank you --Walther16 (talk)08:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda The reason I did not write to the user PenultimateStride is also linked to the fact he put in is user page the"RETIRED" banner, precisely in his talk. As far as I know, it is strictly forbidden to edit whilst formally retired. <EDIT>:My fault, too, because the tmp "RETIRED" remained by mistake in my user page talk (despite eliminated from the main page)—now it has been deleted </EDIT> --Walther16 (talk)09:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to argue with you on thetalk.PenultimateStride (talk)09:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Walther16 andPenultimateStride: As noted at the top of this page, I subscribe toWikipedia:Solicited administrator actions, and will not respond to such a request to avoid the appearance that my involvement is being sought with the expectation of favoring the requesting side. That being said, I don't see how the referenced edits could possibly be considered "vandalism".BD2412T13:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least on it.wiki, deleting entire sections with sources without a previous discussion is considered vandalism (point 2 of WP:VANDALISMO, «cancellazione non giustificata di parti del testo»). However, I am not an expert at all of the policy on en.wiki, where it seems—according to the words "Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way"—that "vandalism" has a different meaning. A discussion was opened in the talk of the article by the user—I answered. I will not edit the article anymore --Walther16 (talk)14:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onShowing up (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.enbi [they/them] • [talk]19:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Enbi: Resolved by retargeting to the disambiguation pageShow up.BD2412T19:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]