User talk:BD2412

{| width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px"
 * class="MainPageBG" style="border: 1px solid #003350; background-color: #cef2f0; vertical-align:top; text-align: left;"|

Welcome message
bd2412 T 02:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Initialism
Just to note, "initialism" as a part of speech is deprecated, in favour of the actual part of speech. —CodeCat 01:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was using an existing entry as a model. I assume that would be a proper noun, then? bd2412 T 01:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. It's deprecated, but we still have existing entries that use it ("abbreviation" and "acronym" are also deprecated). They're being converted as people find them, but it's a slow process. —CodeCat 01:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't we get a bot list of entries containing the header, "Initialism"? bd2412 T 01:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Most likely, there already is one. You could ask at WT:ID if someone can point you to one. —CodeCat 02:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:English initialisms has more than 5,000 of them. This search finds nearly 11,000, some overlapping with the category and some being spurious. DCDuring TALK 03:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hooboy. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very strongly tempted to piss everyone off by converting them all to proper nouns! haw. Equinox ◑ 03:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just looking at AAA, at least some of them appear to be adjectives (e.g. "Awaiting aircraft availability"). bd2412 T 03:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If we want to fix these systematically, it's probably less soul-crushing to start with the small easy ones, rather than the lists of 20 possible expansions. Perhaps get a list of initialism sorted by number of sense lines? (Remember, too, that we have other initialism-esque headers like Acronym and Abbreviation.) I could make a tool to help but I have 50 other things I want to do first. Equinox ◑ 03:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually tend to prefer to tackle the hardest cases first. bd2412 T 03:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You must be one hell of a lawyer :) Equinox ◑ 03:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request
Can you please re-delete one hundred and eleven? It failed RFD but an anon recreated it again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, cheers! bd2412 T 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Homophones in variation appendices?
Hello! I notice that in appendices like this one or this one, there is a list titled "homophones" that contains various words that are vaguely similar in spelling. Is this some specialized meaning of "homophone"?__Gamren (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Homophones are words that are pronounced the same as some form of the variation term. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that an entry A should be considered a homophone on Appendix:Variations of "B" iff, in some language, the word A is homophonic with any of the words that are considered "variations" of B (for some rules that I cannot seem to find)? 'Cause that seems silly.__Gamren (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we have written rules for these; they have always just been done this way, but the homophone variations are generally the common examples. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Estonian counties
Would you consider using for these? You won't have to type as much, and it can include automatic categories as well. For a county of Estonia, I think you'd use. —CodeCat 22:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, easily done. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

About "nove di quadri", "nine of diamonds" and other playing card entries
I'd like to say something about your edits like , where you edited some FL entries like "nove di quadri", and replaced redlinks like "nine of diamonds" by text like "nine of diamonds".

When Wiktionary is "finished" (which will never happen, apparently), personally I think I'd like having any of these scenarios:
 * 1) having no entries like "nine of diamonds" at all in any language
 * 2) having all these entries in all languages
 * 3) having all these entries, but only in English
 * 4) having exactly one entry in English and nothing else, like "ace of spades"

I believe "nine of diamonds", "nove di quadri" and all others like them are SOP, but the possible reasons for keeping them would be more or less the same reasons for keeping older sister, next year and other members of Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. We may want older sister but maybe we don't need irmã mais velha (which is "older sister" in Portuguese), because English entries have translation tables, and FL entries don't. That's why I think we may want to keep all entries like "nine of diamonds" in English only. Or have only one English entry to use as the single NISOP, because all the other English entries would be basically the same anyway.

I think it's a bit weird keeping nove di quadri if we won't have nine of diamonds in the first place. I think either deleting all these Italian entries and/or (!) creating all these English entries would be an improvement, but I'm not saying we should do any of this right now. We can discuss it later in the BP.

Maybe what you did was a good idea (at least in short term), I don't know. If we have only nove di quadri and not nine of diamonds, you at least got rid of a redlink, and now we have usable blue links in these entries, instead of controversial redlinks.

That said, I believe this is important: You said "per Beer parlour/2011/April" in the edit summaries, but I believe that was not accurate. This statement makes it sound like the poll has a consensus for doing something. I believe the poll "ended" as no consensus — even though technically, the poll never formally ended. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't realistically think we are ever going to include these, unless there is some language issue where there are a number of languages using a single-word term. My impression was that this had been discussed and decided somewhere, but the linked discussion was the last word I could find in an admittedly hasty search. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 04:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr Ullmann's Missing lists
I've been botting through these and removing all entries where the original mentioned word is no longer present in the original linking entry - which is quite a lot of them! I hope this might help in your worthy quest to get them cleared out. Right now I still need to process pages H through T, but I'll have those done soonish. Equinox ◑ 09:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By hand or by bot? There must be some way to automate that process. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 12:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've finished it now. It was automated. I'm not sure that I understand your question though. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that you meant you were doing it by hand. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

103 and 104
Do you think it a good idea to speedy delete 103 and 104? These entries do not contain anything beyond the literal. We've had so many RFDs on similar items and the principles are now even codified in WT:CFI (also thanks to your effort), so it seems going without RFD would be fine. I am okay to go via RFD as well, but speedy seems fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose a weak case could be made to keep them on the grounds that (according to Wikipedia) 103 is the emergency number to call in ambulance in Belarus, India and Ukraine, and 104 is a somewhat notable art center in Paris. Not so sure about the dictionary merit of the latter, but if the emergency number is used like 911 and 999 are i the countries where they are used, then it should be added and the entry kept. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I guess I'll send them to RFD to sort it out. The way it is right now, the rationale for keeping these entries is not clear from the entries themselves. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

bër
Please do not create entries in languages you are unfamiliar with merely based on an entry in another language's Wiktionary. In many cases, as in this one, you can spread misinformation, and you are relying on other people to go over your edits and fix them. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-taken. I am curious, then, what should be done about this entry in the French, Malagasy, and Gagana Samoa Wiktionaries? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The French and Malagasy Wiktionaries have no real criteria for inclusion like we do, so I doubt they'd fix it even if we used the right language to tell them. I don't know the state of the Samoan Wiktionary, but given its size, I assume it is a similar case to the others. The problem of other Wiktionaries' reliability is another reason you should be careful, but it is beside the main point. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (butting in) Malagasy is a hopeless case anyway; there is a bot running that mines English and French Wiktonaries, and applies transitivity to translation pairs like crazy, resulting in a quite unique phenomenon, a lexicographical analogue of large-scale brain damage. Gagana Samoa for bër was created by the same bot.
 * As for French, my best guess is that they have a way of dealing with erroneous information.
 * In any case, before there was the English wikt entry for bër, the French entry for bër was the only independent record in wikt.org. And making en wikt entry based on that French entry would mean that the French entry for bär would have remained the only independent record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On the merits, it seems entirely plausible to me that the Wolof word for butter would be borrowed from the French, if butter was not originally part of their cuisine, and was introduced to them by the French. Otherwise, what is the Wolof word for butter? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Butter would be bëër or dax if you believe http://linguistics.ucla.edu/publications/opl_19.pdf; butter is not in http://resourcepage.gambia.dk/ftp/wollof.pdf. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well, it does indicate that the word is adopted from French. The difference is of a letter. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is more than merely a letter: the difference is between correct and incorrect. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (A French source for "bëër" meaning butter is http://wolofresources.org/language/download/diagne_grammaire_wolof.pdf. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC))
 * I created bëër, but now I noticed bëer and bóor; is there a considerable variation in spelling, or what is going on? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All of these - bër, bëer (bëër?), and bóor - are plausible alternative usages, given that we're talking about an approximate transliteration (Wolof does not have the same menu of vowels as French) that would likely have made it into the spoken language long before being reduced to script. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Plausible, yes, but actually in use? A fluent speaker or a non-fluent speaker familiar with the language and equipped with good lexicographic resources would be able to sort this kind of thing out. Anyone else is likely to make a mess of it. I don't give people legal advice, and you shouldn't be creating entries in languages you don't know. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Plausible based on its longstanding existence in French Wiktionary. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The existence of bëer was based on me forgetting our orthographic norms for Wolof, which is a bit rich considering that I was the one who codified them by writing WT:About Wolof in the first place. In any case, I'm a bit frustrated at the fact that you seem not to have gotten the point that fr.wikt is not what we should base plausibility on. I check Diouf's Wolof-French dictionary pretty much every time I create a Wolof entry, and that or something of similar reliability should be the basis of all our entries created by nonspeakers. (I have studied the language, but cannot speak it all.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @MK: Deleting bëër created by me to make room for your erroneous bëer was not exactly polite, I would say. You should have deleted your erroneous entry and then placed your content to my entry if required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did it in the more efficient way. Don't lecture me about politeness until you learn how to display it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the most efficient process would have been moving my entry at bër to bëër, and then creating the separate entry at bër. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

forced heir and forced heirship
Hey B! As the resident legal guy, can I request entries for the abovementioned lemmas? Ta! --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 10:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : <font style="background:lightgreen">bd2412 T

to
 * : <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Anomalocaris (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey. Wanna give yourself a flood flag or something? --Genecioso (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 10:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for soft protection on my user talk page
Would you be so kind to slap 3 months of anon-only protection to my user talk page, xwiki vandal Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chuck. Cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion non-consensus
Thanks for monitoring Requests for deletion/English. Regarding the closure of RFD for American option / Bermudan option / European option here, in the absence of any input (and in reaction to the closure) I've gone ahead and added entries for American / Bermudan / European as adjectives, attested with colocations other than "X option". These should in theory make it a clear case that American option / Bermudan option / European option are NISOP. How long do you think I should wait before relisting these for RFD? -Stelio (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that including the shorter forms necessarily makes them subject to deletion, as the shorter forms are backformations from the longer ones, which had to have established idiomacity before being shortened. As far as I know, we don't remove words/phrases from the dictionary for becoming genericized after having become idiomatic. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 12:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These narrow definitions of the qualifiers for option seem to me to demonstrate why American option etc. should be kept. At some point in the distant future perhaps the American option etc. could be dropped, but I doubt that the generalized financial senses of the adjectives reflect general use in the relevant community of the terms involved. Of course, it's hardly a surprise that other dictionaries don't have entries for American option etc. and don't have suitable definitions for American either. DCDuring (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we ever delete entries because they have gone from being idiomatic to being non-idiomatic? For example, if people started abbreviating french fries as just "french", would we at some point add that sense to "french" and delete "french fries"? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't particulary agree that such things should be removed and some have argued for keeping terms like American option. But I don't recall any specific instance of deletion. I do believe that we have treated some entries as NISOP based on the kind of back-formation represented by American here. If the initial formation was long ago and the sense back-formed has taken hold in other collocations we may not even notice what has taken place. DCDuring (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My sense is that, just as a topic in Wikipedia can't cease to be notable once notability has been established, an entry in Wiktionary can't cease to be idiomatic just because it has become genericized. In other words, if a phrase is ever idiomatic, we should include it, even if in so doing we report that its idiomacity is obsolete. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. However, I disagree that American option is idiomatic. It's an (noun sense 3) that is  (adjective sense 3), where the adjectival sense of American was not derived as a back-formation from American option. How about we all revisit this conversation in a few months then? -Stelio (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (How does that work? What if there is a vote that changes the notability criteria?) Equinox ◑ 20:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That discussion all makes sense if the original term was indeed American option and the term American has descended from it. That's not the case though. American call, American put, American swaption and so on have always been concurrent with American option. The common term is that American has a specific financial meaning as an adjective, used to describe a range of different options, and that American option is just one of the possible colocations. If we list American option, there is no argument not to list all other colocations. ... All of this is not what I was asking, of course. I'd rather have this debate in "public" at RFD, and was instead wondering what the polite amount of time is to wait before re-raising the topic at RFD. -Stelio (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest waiting a few months. It is considered poor form to renominate something shortly after the closure of the same discussion. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Super, thank you! :-D That's exactly what I suspected, and hence why I asked. I'm glad that there's finally some discussion on the topic, and I hope you'll both be satisfied to rekindle the conversation in a few months' time. -Stelio (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

in gross
I had a go at adding the legal usage of this after seeing w:Serjeanty and poking around and finding that the phrase is also used in American law of e.g. easements, but I'd appreciate if you'd look over it, if you or your law dictionaries happen to be familiar with the phrase. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

pantheisme
I'm not sure why you decided this is Norwegian. The Norwegian spelling is, "th" being rarely used in Norwegian. Can we get rid of it? DonnanZ (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is probably a straight-up typo, and can be deleted with respect to Norwegian. However, since we have (correct) entries for Dutch pantheïsme and French panthéisme, I am wondering if we should redirect this to one of those, or somehow note that this would be the spelling for either of these entries but for the missing diacritic. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, if no particular language can be found for this particular form, which seems to be the case, I am going to send it to RFD - it may be difficult to redirect. Thanks. DonnanZ (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Import
Hi, would you mind importing Hispanoamericanism from the English Wikipedia to here? Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , done, I'll leave the rest to you. Cheers! <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unwritten rules
Hi, BD. How are you?

In a conversation, I had once with Chuck Entz, he once made reference to Wiktionary's "unwritten rules." In retrospect, I think he just might have been talking about my starting an RFD while an RFV was going on. However, I have noticed a few things and I was hoping you could help me with some of my questions. There are some quasi-democratic processes at work in:


 * RFV
 * RFD
 * Beer Parlour

I have understood that, somehow, whenever, tallies of supporting and opposing views are counted. Where there are productive contributions to the topic, I believe that the time limit to make a decision is extended. It seems to me that the ones closing topics are usually the administrators. In discussion rooms, I'm not sure how it works. People either voice their support or opposition. But what number of people contributing to a topic matter? After a certain number of contributions, what action is taken? Who decides? When?

In short, I'd really like to understand these loosely documented democratic processes here at Wiktionary. Your help would greatly be appreciated.

-- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 11:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, "unwritten rules" may be too clean-cut of a phrase to describe the process. We have discussions, but the process of tallying and closing those discussions is as voluntary as anything else, so those for which an outcome is difficult to discern will linger open until someone feels like bringing them to a conclusion. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate it. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 08:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring figuratively to the understandings and etiquette that a community tends to build up over the years. It can be quite jarring for the established folks when someone new comes in and fails to observe these. It's sort of like an American driving in the UK who forgets to stay on the left side of the street, or doesn't know what to do when they come to a roundabout. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand and I agree. I intend to keep a fairly low profile from now on ;-) -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Bringing back ƿynn entries
Dear BD2412, hello, I'm sorry for bothering you, the thing is there was a vote to remove all ƿynn entries and it was successful. - Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns.

I know that you are most likely not involved in this subject and I feel really uncomfortable to disturb you, but I was told you might be inclined to assist if I make a convincing argument.

There is a discussion about it on the Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/November page - []. I hope the arguments you find there can be convincing. If there were a vote to bring these entries back, would you support it? Sorry for taking your time. Birdofadozentides (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

hic et ubique
Hello bd2412. I see Talk:hic et ubique has gone through a deletion process, but it doesn't appear to have been tagged for deletion in the first place, meaning people watching the page were unlikely to participate. This is going by the deletion page. Is this grounds for undeletion?

Just to be upfront, yes, I think the page should simply be kept as a phrase in English. The code-switching argument is unconvincing as it's used without expectation the reader will know Latin, and has a long history of usage even including Hamlet. Criteria for inclusion is "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means".

Thanks for all the editorial work you do. Conflatuman (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(etc)
These swp references were made because no Wikipedia disambiguation pages exist. In the case of, you are redirected to McNulty, where I can find no reference to Nulty at all. In some cases I went to a lot of trouble, in other cases WP pages have been created after the Wiktionary entry. DonnanZ (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the Wikipedia link implies that the Wikipedia article provides some information about the name itself, which neither of these do. You would be better off creating the disambiguation page or anthroponym page on Wikipedia directly, and then linking to that. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm-yeah, I think a Wikipedia surname page would need at two entries, in some cases I found only one example. Creating a WP page would be a first for me, but I'm quite used to editing existing pages (added a sentence to today). DonnanZ (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Modify a page!
Please modify this page: Appendix:Variations of "foc"! Thanks for the advice! Mihai Popa 😃📃 Talk to me! 💬 『My contributions! 🕔🕖』 03:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There do not appear to be enough variations of this combination to justify having an appendix. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 Questionable! If there don't appear to be enough variations of this combination to justify having an appendix, please remove useless notes like this:
 * Please replace this with your variation 3! and use less entries!
 * Thanks for the reply! Mihai Popa 😃📃 Talk to me! 💬 『My contributions! 🕔🕖』 03:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what you are referring to. Where is there a note of this sort? Also, where did you receive "advice" on this? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 03:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 Delete this page: Appendix:Variations of "foc"! Mihai Popa 😃📃 Talk to me! 💬 『My contributions! 🕔🕖』 03:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 THANKS FOR THE DELETION! Also delete this: Category:Rhymes:Romanian/ər/2 syllable because has a bad name, correct should be "2 apples", not "2 apple"! Mihai Popa 😃📃 Talk to me! 💬 『My contributions! 🕔🕖』 04:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at Beer Parlour
Hey BD2412, hope you've been doing well! Can you please take a look at ? I've known you to be a level-headed admin and have taken your opinions and actions in a very positive light. We really need more admin eyes there for action as I've been very concerned with the direction that the discussion is heading. Thanks! AG202 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

legal right
Greetings BD2412,

I noticed that you deleted "legal right" back in 2014: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=legal_right&action=edit&editintro=MediaWiki:nec-editintro

This term has an entry, including several very pertinent and solid definitions in the field of law and jurisprudence in Merriam-Webster.

Do you see it worthy of being recreated?

Thank you. newfiles (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The entry, legal right, was deleted by community consensus on the grounds of being a sum of parts phrase—that is, a phrase the meaning of which was easily discernable from looking at its component terms, like "purple umbrella". Restoration of the term would require a similar community process. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)