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

Status: Active. bd2412 T

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

Do you have any objections with me nominating Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe for FLC? Figured I'd check since you're one of the other major contributors to the article. -- ZooBlazer 09:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: By all means, go ahead! The list is a labor of love, and as good as any, I think. BD2412 T 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll do it whenever I get a second support on my current FLC. -- ZooBlazer 21:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! If you're still maintaining this page, I'd recommend leafing through Category:United States courts of appeals cases and its subcategories – looks like you could expand the listings by four or five times! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I have worked on the page, but I don't know if I would say that I am "maintaining" it. I do have in mind to add the most notable cases from the category, and probably split the list by circuit eventually. BD2412 T 21:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you altered some links on List of United States federal judges by longevity of service to different versions of their names (I gather to match article titles).

I think the goal here should be to standardize on the versions of the judges' names that were typically used on official and semi-official judicial rosters, and I think Samuel Rossiter Betts is in fact the usual roster name for him; Wikipedia divergence can involve either expansion or contraction from the roster name (the judge usually listed in almanacs and law books as Paul P. Rao is Paul Peter Rao while the one listed as Giles S. Rich is Giles Rich...while "John Clifford Wallace" has finally been moved to the roster-name J. Clifford Wallace his colleague normally listed as Alfred T. Goodwin is still plain Alfred Goodwin to Wikipedia, and Elbert Parr Tuttle plain Elbert Tuttle).

Does nobody who contributes there have ready access to shelves of Federal Reporters? 71.105.190.227 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use common names rather than "official" names throughout the project, both for article titles and for list entries. Common names are generally derived from common usage such as news reporting. It is always possible to propose that an article be renamed based on evidence of which form is in fact the most common usage. BD2412 T 19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - could you use RevisionDelete on revision 1211704524 on King Kong, per WP:RD2? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction:  Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thought I'd ask you as an admin involved in the discussion. How will the results of Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Follow-up_RfC_on_TV_season_article_titles be implemented? I imagine mass moves would be required but I'm unaware of how that'll happen. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 00:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bot request will be needed. Let me have a look. BD2412 T 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor below the thread raised concerns with my close; it's safe to say that whatever happens there will be some discussion before anything I guess. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 01:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconcerned with the continued recalcitrance of the recalcitrant. It will take time to implement the system to make the change anyway. BD2412 T 02:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand the close on this. GidiD made an irrelevant argument about Hebrew sources, and two other oppose votes merely echoed their support based on GidiD's flawed argument. Prevalence in Hebrew has zero bearing on en.wiki titling. Given this, please can you explain how you weighed the overall arguments in the RM as no consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TITLECHANGES, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title". Strictly speaking, you need a consensus in favor of the change irrespective of what the other side is arguing. Those who want the change to a longstanding title bear the burden of gaining the affirmative support for that change. Discounting the !votes premised solely on Hebrew usage wouldn't yield a clear consensus for change. User:GidiD stated opposition "per Humpster and VQuakr", who both offered arguments unrelated to the Hebrew usage, and then stated the Hebrew usage as an additional rationale, and explicitly in response to an assertion that "attack" was used "even in Israeli documents, such as the IDF report"; User:FortunateSons stated opposition "based GidiD etc. due to more common usage" which exceeds echoing GidiD's argument, which already referenced Humpster and VQuakr. That leaves only one !vote explicitly premised solely on the Hebrew usage argument. BD2412 T 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had proposed a few edits on the talk page of that article and was curious if you could take a look at them and see if you would possibly be able to add them?

The only reason I am asking you directly is you have edited the article since it was protected.

Thank you. Awshort (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for resolution of the RSN discussion before I continue with that article. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would edit the article after telling Awshort that you are waiting for a discussion to end before editing the article. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why anyone would make a fuss over what amounts to the correction of a typo, but it is beginning to make me suspicious. BD2412 T 03:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious of what, exactly? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious of your motives with respect to the suppression of information in this article. BD2412 T 03:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD2412, thanks for your requested move close at Talk:Ryan Binkley. I noticed that you removed the RM tag from the article yourself on that article. For future reference, RMCD bot automatically does this, and there's no need to manually do so! It saves a few edits :) Cheers, — Frostly (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the bot takes too long. It is a quick enough thing to remove the tag immediately, so that no reader is led to think that the discussion remains live for them to comment. BD2412 T 22:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot performs the task every 15 minutes; is there a shorter timeframe that you'd prefer? Per Wikipedia:Bot policy § Definitions, After launching the bot, an assumption can be made that there is no further need for human decision-making.— Frostly (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally have them done within a minute or two. A separate concern that is always back of mind is that a bot action will not show up on many watchlists, which matters where a multimove is proposed on one talk page, but editors may only be watching one of the other articles involved. This is an edit I prefer to have seen, in the event that editors wonder what happened. BD2412 T 02:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I want to make sure that you see this edit where Morbidthoughts removed a source you added stating "Indy100 is not RS, being a clickbait site". To be honest, I hadn't noticed that you had used that source since better ones became available. I assumed that after the comments made by other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Emily_Willis_overdose_sources you wouldn't be using Indy100. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morbidthoughts is not being particularly consistent with the tenor of the RSN discussion, which has generally supported use of the Toronto Star. There is no rule forbidding the use of Indy100 as a redundant source for content also sourced to an uncontested source. BD2412 T 21:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse the two Toronto papers. Toronto Sun is tabloid trash[1] comparable to the New York Post. Toronto Star is legitimate comparable to the New York Times. All you have to do is look at the two websites to see the type of coverage and audience they pander to. Further there has been discussion of indy100 at RSN that recognises it for what it is. Clickbait and unreliable.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: What on the website of the Toronto Sun speaks to the reliability of information conveyed there? A focus on popular culture trivialities and headlines calculated to draw views does not by itself render the information reported suspect. BD2412 T 22:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, let's look at some of the news items on the front page, "Driver arrested after crashing his car into the gates of Buckingham Palace in London", "Kate Middleton breaks silence after surgery, shares new family photo", "Man slapped with stack of cash at Florida strip club in dispute over tips: Cops", "Police remove 34 bodies from English funeral home and arrest 2 for fraud and preventing burial", "Ohio women drove dead man to bank to withdraw his money: Cops". Typical sensationalist trash. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it's not "Alien crashes spaceship into Buckingham Palace" or "Half-man half-bat slapped with stack of cash at Florida strip club". Also, police removing improperly held bodies from a funeral home and arresting its patrons, or reporting on a woman driving a corpse to a bank, could just as easily be in high-level news outlets. Sensationalism in the accurate reporting of quirky news or pop culture news does not equate to inaccurate reporting. Do you have any facts to suggest that the reporting itself is not factual? BD2412 T 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about the fact checking of those specific stories, but you really should be looking at these articles about the Toronto Sun.[3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly the sort of evidence I would want to see to support the contention that the reporting is unreliable. I accept your contention on this basis. BD2412 T 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, I had great trouble finding a discussion we had had here a couple of weeks ago because the history of you talk page only goes back a week. It appears that instead of archiving the discussions on your talk page, you rename it. Is that right? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I archive individual discussions and sometimes I archive the page as a whole. There is actually no requirement that talk page discussions be archived at all. BD2412 T 21:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that talk pages are generally left where they are and the conversations moved to an archive (if desired). That way the talk page history is available. Am I wrong about that? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different editors do it different ways. Quite a few who archive by page move. BD2412 T 21:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) And sometimes busy bodies go around finding complete trivia to moan about instead of getting on with the work of building an encyclopedia. And here we are! 😬 ——Serial Number 54129 21:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a recent discussion and I was surprised to find that this talk page is only about a week old. So I asked about it. Your sarcasm is not helpful. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper folding (disambiguation) 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented in the discussion. BD2412 T 16:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this move was definitely a bit hasty. See my comments on Talk:Le Breuil, Aosta Valley. I would revert it and continue the discussion/edit the article to reflect how the name change has been contentious and the town is working on restoring the previous name. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 22:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the town restores the previous name, and sources reflect this usage, it can be moved back. Nothing is so permanently set in stone here as to be unamenable to real-world changes. BD2412 T 22:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the opposite however per WP:NAMECHANGES. The "official" name is irrelevant. No sources use the name "Le Breuil". Can you find them? WP:COMMONNAME applies. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 23:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. as I wrote on the article page: the official name HAS been reverted in December. It was just a dumb mistake. So the page move is completely nonsensical. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gtoffoletto: Upon sober reflection, I have reversed my close and relisted this discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help straightening things out! Have a good night. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 00:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Allen, 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 now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 01:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BD2412, it's unbelievable how many small errors you DON'T see in your own article, even though you may have looked at it 100 times. So thank you very much for your work on Ingrid Hornef. Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's my pleasure. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BD2412,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages 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) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done Tennessee judges? I submitted Draft:John L. T. Sneed. I was wondering if you had a draft of him or if I'm mossing something. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that was your draft. I think I added in the Attorney General bit. Thanks. The Tennessee Attorney General entry should note if it's an elected or appointed position (and if it hanged ever). Party on. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: Thanks for your work on these! BD2412 T 15:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Adventure Time (season 1) episodes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I object to the blanking (which I know you're not the one doing) and deletion of these category redirects. The categories were at these titles for years, sometimes more than a decade. Leaving a category redirect behind in these cases to help with the autofill when adding categories is common sense. BD2412 T 15:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I get very frustrated when editors or bots move pages, whether articles or categories, and don't leave a redirect behind. I can create a lot of broken redirects, too, that just end up getting deleted. I always post notices when I tag empty categories and luckily, that provides a week to sort things out if there has been a misunderstanding. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BD2412, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Armen Kazarian, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Kazarian.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|BuySomeApples)). And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

BuySomeApples (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @BuySomeApples: I am not the creator of this article, and therefore am not the editor to be notified. Please check the edit history and find the right person there. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these notifications are sent automatically and I don't know why they goof up sometimes. I nominated this through the page curation interface and I feel like it makes these mistakes more often. I'll check to make sure the actual creator got notified as well. Sorry for the inconvenience! BuySomeApples (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just figured it out. It can't recognize the person who turns a redirect into an article as the page creator, so it notifies the original redirect creator instead. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the problem. BD2412 T 23:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BD2412. Thank you for your work on Hyundai Space and Aircraft. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to post a request for help with this draft on the Arkansas Wikiproject, but it does not appear very active. I saw you posted about Ariansas jidges there. Any chance you could help le get this entry up to snuff for mainspace? FloridaArmy (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @FloridaArmy: Sure, I'll see what I can do. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, user:BD2412. I am the editor who began the recent move discussion at Talk:October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. I am not disputing your decision to keep the page titles as they are. However, I would ask to reconsdier the outcome of the RM. As per THREEOUTCOMES, I believe the discussion would have been best closed as "no consensus", based on an equal number of users being for and against the move, while two !votes seeming to have gone their own way. The consensus to change some of the nominated articles back to "Speaker" is not new and was found in Talk:2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. Thanks BurgeoningContracting 19:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BD2412: I am gratefully to thank you for contributing a cleanup operation on the article List of I Can See Your Voice Malaysia (Malay language) episodes. With the proposed renamings are solved, please don't forget to cleanup all of pages related to the I Can See Your Voice franchise. ← Proceed to this page. Saisønisse (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These will all be found and fixed eventually. BD2412 T 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, 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) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, those opposing the move have cited MOS:SPORTCAPS. It been stated that it says: "Specific titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized: WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Tour de France, Americas Cup. Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion, international tournaments." This is a gross misrepresentation by omission in that the text actually reads: Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources: WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Tour de France, Americas Cup [emphasis added to indicate omitted text]. I must admit that I was duped by this misrepresentation, taking it to be an accurate rendering of the passage being quoted. When accurately rendered, it is clear that there is not an exception to the general guidance at MOS:CAPS for sporting events. We would only cap if they are usually capitalized in independent sources - a close paraphrase of the general guidance. Consequently, (per WP:RMCIDC and WP:DISCARD) arguments which rely on this misrepresentation, either directly or indirectly, should be given no weight in assessing the consensus of the move discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not about to dive back into a move discussion closed four years ago. In any case, it seems moot now. The titles have all since been moved. BD2412 T 02:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I do not usually keep move discussions on my watch list permanently and I clearly had a case of date dislexia. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Curtis Sanford, 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 now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 00:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless the U.S.A. Bible, 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 now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 23:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]