User talk:BodhiHarp

This is BodhiHarp's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 9
/Archive 10

Commons	Wikipedia
Wiktionary

Banned users
None right now

RfDs per your questions on my talk page

"Voiced palatal trill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Voiced palatal trill 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/2025 December 12 § Voiced palatal trill until a consensus is reached.

"Palatal trill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Palatal trill 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/2025 December 12 § Voiced palatal trill until a consensus is reached.

"Voiced labiodental trill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Voiced labiodental trill 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/2025 December 12 § Voiced palatal trill until a consensus is reached.

"Labiodental trill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Labiodental trill 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/2025 December 12 § Voiced palatal trill until a consensus is reached. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Voiced post-palatal trill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Voiced post-palatal trill 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/2025 December 22 § Voiced post-palatal trill until a consensus is reached. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Voiced palatal fricative trill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Voiced palatal fricative trill 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/2025 December 22 § Voiced palatal fricative trill until a consensus is reached. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Extended confirmed account

Hi, this user is a sock puppet account which violates user name policy , so how his / her name becomes a redirect to Wikipedia namespace. That's so weird to me. كريم أحمد (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @كريم أحمد if you think someone is a sockpuppet, please present your evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Just making a vague allegation on their Talk page won't do anything. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they mean I'm a sockpuppet/I have abused multiple accounts. I have all alt accounts listed on userpage. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised! So they mean this? That's a redirect to an information page, not an editor's user page - I can see you tried to explain that in the edit summary... Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The account is g-locked anyway so it

I don't think it's a big deal if it's left as-is. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet yes. I don't think it would be proper if we redirect this userspace to the mainspace. كريم أحمد (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I just realised you did the redirect @BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ - I don't think that was appropriate, I thought the user did it themselves. This was an editors userpage, they just happened to call themselves that - what you've done makes it more confusing? I don't think that should be a redirect. I'm going to revert you because I don't think this is helpful. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Admin, which similar to this case, redirects to Wikipedia:Administrators. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I didn't see that, I'm hesitant because I would have thought the blocking admin would have done it themselves if they thought it was useful?

@Izno sorry to bother you, if you have a moment can you please let us know if you think this should be a redirect? I don't want to accidentally start an edit war or anything & it'd be a redirect over your block notice. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The User:Admin redirect was the result of a WP:RfD discussion, and thus a product of affirmative community consensus. Unless you're a very experienced user, it seems safer to leave it as-is or, if you strongly feel User:Extended confirmed account should be a redirect, start an RfD to generate affirmative community consensus. Because that account was used as a sockpuppet, I suspect it should be left with the sockpuppet notice, not silently redirected. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! It's quite a lengthy name so it's more likely that someone might mistype "admin" compared to "extended confirmed account" - the sockpuppet notice should also help to avoid any confusion. I agree that there's more value in keeping the sockpuppet notice than redirecting, as the chances for confusion in this specific case will be much smaller.

Admin

This account doesn't appear to have belonged to an editor
It has no contribution history
The user page itself was always blank
This is a short word that infers authority and could easily be confused
It redirected to Jimbo's page when it was created and there are no edits associated with that account
The RfC decided to change the existing redirect destination to a project page

Extended confirmed account

This account belonged to an editor
It has a contribution history
No evidence of editors getting confused on the Talk page
The user page has an important admin notice on
This is a term for a relatively experienced user that encompasses a majority of editors & isn't likely to cause much confusion
It's never been a redirect before now
We don't have consensus for a redirect

@BodhiHarp if you feel strongly that this should be redirected, log an RfC and we can get a consensus together? These would be my arguments against redirecting and why I don't think we can carry the results of the earlier RfC over to this case. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please absolutely don't remove a sockpuppet notice placed by an administrator on the user page of a sockpuppet. Doing so can add considerably to the difficulty in finding the history of the sockpuppets when doing so is necessary to investigate further suspected sockpuppets. JBW (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about we add a hatnote at the top?

{{hatnote|If you are looking for information on extended confirmed accounts on Wikipedia, see [[Wikipedia:User groups#Extended confirmed accounts]]}} - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ talk 01:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What problem are you trying to solve? I have trouble imagining someone looking for the permissions for extended confirmed but specifically looking up User:Extended Confirmed Account. Even on the UG page, the only place the phrase "extended confirmed account" appears is the section header; everywhere else it's just "extended confirmed" or "autoconfirmed", never with "account." This is a solution without a problem.

Moreover, as I said above, the Admin userpage was the result of an RfC. Without one, it's a regular editor action and per WP:UOWN we should not edit others' userpages. I suggest moving on from this whole idea. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year BodhiHarp!

Happy New Year!

BodhiHarp,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

You have improved a lot over the last year. Keep up the good work! ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Template:Variations

Template:Variations has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Module:Variations

Module:Variations has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

nasalized velar approximant

I imported the attested examples from Draft:Nasalized voiced velar approximant to Voiced velar approximant#Nasal now. Feel free to recreate the symbol data connection and redirect if you want. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]