User talk:BD2412: Difference between revisions

 

Line 168: Line 168:

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) in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country this article] might be considered “vandalism”. The sources I quoted were about the topic, or at least I supposed they were:

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) in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country this article] might be considered “vandalism”. The sources I quoted were about the topic, or at least I supposed they were:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Average_human_height_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=1336593522 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);

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Average_human_height_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=1336593522 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);

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Average_human_height_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=1336593616 in the second one], it is a recent study by some scientists anthropologists concerning the human distribution of avarage statures in the world, so I am not able to understand the subject of the revert: “Interesting but off-topic”.

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Average_human_height_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=1336593616 in the second one], it is a recent study by some scientists anthropologists concerning the human distribution of statures in the world, so I am not able to understand the subject of the revert: “Interesting but off-topic”.

<small>(On it.wiki, with the help of the Community and my own work, the article “Statura” (Stature/Height) is “featured”)</small> Thank you –[[User:Walther16|Walther16]] ([[User talk:Walther16|talk]]) 08:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

<small>(On it.wiki, with the help of the Community and my own work, the article “Statura” (Stature/Height) is “featured”)</small> Thank you –[[User:Walther16|Walther16]] ([[User talk:Walther16|talk]]) 08:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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

@Red Director: Thanks! I knew I was around there. BD2412 T 01:53, 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. BD2412 T 23:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Edge of Twilight (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section 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 a primary 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 the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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

 Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks! BD2412 T 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it possible that you could delete the revisions on my user page that are older than this revision? I ask because they used to be deleted, but they re-appeared after you undeleted my user page after I requested it at Wikipedia: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! BD2412 T 23:49, 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. BD2412 T 23:31, 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. See WP: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. BD2412 T 01:58, 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 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 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. BD2412 T 02:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some of these changes. BD2412 T 02:55, 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! BD2412 T 03:20, 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=1316618183 Mandlerex (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. BD2412 T 02:35, 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. BD2412 T 03:51, 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 the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 28 § Draft articles on the categories 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! BD2412 T 13:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD,

Can you handle the institution of an WP: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.)

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

@Gotitbro:, per Wikipedia: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. BD2412 T 14:09, 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.

Cheers Gotitbro (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 ^Δx talk to me 16:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That, I have no knowledge of. I have not had problems creating RfD’s, though. BD2412 T 20:32, 30 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 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:39, 31 January 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) in this 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]