User:BD2412/Archive 014

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 March 2014 The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 3837 links in the challenge of February 2014. Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Many thanks! bd2412 T 00:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC) DC Meetups in March Happy March! Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather. Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up: Evening WikiSalon on Wednesday, March 12 from 7 PM – 9 PM. Meet up with Wikipedians for coffee at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle! If you cannot make it in the evening, join us at our... March Meetup on Sunday, March 23 from 3 PM – 6 PM. Our monthly weekend meetup, same place as last month. Meet really cool and interesting people! Women in the Arts 2014 meetup and edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 30 from 10 AM – 5 PM. Our second annual Women in the Arts edit-a-thon, held at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free lunch will be served! We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. — Harej (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Template Are you serious. Template the regulars. Done close a move discussion thats clearly valid nor should you ignore the evidence presented. Disgracefully poor.Blethering Scot 17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Can you tell me what was controversial about the move that required a RM. The answer is nothing, the boot is not the primary topic, as move has been in place for a period of time and disam it should of been discussed not moved back.Blethering Scot 17:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC) The template is purely informative, not a "you've been warned" act, and reverting bold moves for discussion is common and accepted practice, per WP:BRD. If you believe your actions to be correct, then there is no need to get worked up about it. Just follow the normal procedures, and if your beliefs about primary usage and ambiguity are correct, the matter will be resolved within a few weeks, at most. bd2412 T 17:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I am worked up and i believe your actions were by no means correct, in fact i believe them to be extremely suboptimal. The move request had been started and replies to it had been achieved. There wasn't a cat in hells chance of the primary being restored. You should have let the move request continue and it would either of failed or Kinky boots (musical) moved to the primary. Thought of you as a good editor, however know i believe your judgement here has been poor. Move request should of been let continue, in fact it will continue as it needs to remain open.Blethering Scot 17:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Normal procedures only require a move request if its controversial, evidence is clear this want in anyway that. BRD didn't and shouldn't of applied and an editor had started a discussion and it should of continued, especially given evidence had been presented. Reverting other editors should only be done when clearly justified and given the last part of the that policy was underway the reverting wasn't and isn't justifiable.Blethering Scot 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Try not to get so upset over getting reverted. Calm discussion will yield the correct result. With respect to my specific actions here, they are based on my experience in dealing with a large number of situations exactly like these. The reason the move request should not have been allowed to continue is that now readers will be confused over whether supporting the request would result in the article being moved or staying where it was. What is framed as a move request now contains an argument for retaining the current title. Your own comment now says "oppose", when opposition to a move would retain the status quo. This is exactly the sort of conduct that lead to the situation with the Chelsea Manning move discussion. The appropriate thing to do is to initiate a new move discussion, clearly setting forth the reasons why you believe "Kinky boots" should be moved to "Kinky boots (boot)". As a matter of common sense, you are always better off going through a move request than moving a page unilaterally, unless the move is to correct a typo in the title or the like. bd2412 T 18:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC) No the move was not controversial, if evidence is clear then i will continue to move the page, common sense is clear and your not on the side of common sense as your actions clearly show. Common sense would of allowed discussion to take place. You cannot come up with one good reason why BRD applies, it doesn't as Discussion was under way and evidence presented. The discussion caused no harm to the encyclopaedia, there were no disam links at all, i had fixed them and now there are bloody links to fix. Short term your move causes more harm that the discussions did not. Well I'm not going to fix any more disambiguation links in future as idiotic behaviour like yours shows me why its not with whilst doing. Honestly that was a stupid and utterly idiotic move. The original move request more than handled the situation, but thanks to you having 0 common sense we start again.Blethering Scot 18:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure how you can feel that the move was not controversial when another editor objected to it and initiated a process to reverse it. That is the very definition of controversy. In time, perhaps when you reach my level of contribution to this project, I believe that you will see that my action here was correct. I am sorry that this process has distressed you. bd2412 T 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Your an absolute piss taker and I won't be patronised by someone like you. I'm quite happy with my 37 thousand edits, thank you very much.. You may have experience but no common sense, reverting in the middle of a discussion does not help anyone, BR should not be done after D and there was no imminent danger to the encyclopedia that could needed averted by reverting. In fact that shows you have no common sense because any one with it would have let the discussion continue. If I see my self ever becoming like you as you said I will shoot myself. Blethering Scot 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC) BletheringScot, someone clearly objected to the move, and therefore I don't see why you've gotten quite this worked up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) @Lukeno94:They did with a reason akin to its been like this since 2005 i want it back, there wasn't one but of evidence provided as to why. Im not even angry at that its understandable and the discussion could handle What I'm very angry at is an admin reverting and closing a discussion that was taking place. There is no excuse or common sense for enacting a revert citing BRD when a discussion is taking place. That discussion was perfectly capable of handling the situation, there was no imminent issue that needed correcting that would justify a revert when a discussion was taking place and the editor who objected could of revetted but choose to discuss instead which is a far better way of handling. On top of that he closed down the discussion when evidence already provided that clearly showed a page with just 148 views wasn't the primary target. Discussion is important and closing one which was already underway and reverting is not excusable. He's also left links pointing to wrong pages as a result that id spent time fixing, this caused more harm doing something than not.Blethering Scot 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether the objection is 100% grounded in policy or not; the move was controversial, therefore the reversion was correct. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC) @Lukeno94: No the reversion was 100% incorrect citing BRD, there was no BRD there was Discuss, revert then close discussion. The discussion wasn't aloud to continue, despite being started and replied to. He is miss using a policy.Blethering Scot 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC) In addition closing down the discussion was 100% disrespectful to the proposer, who chose to start the discussion rather than revert and to me the person who replied to it. There was little reason to revert when discussing already and even less need to close the discussion down completely. If he was interested in a discussion he would of taken part in it rather than doing all that and then templating a regular.Blethering Scot 19:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC) The proposer couldn't have reverted, since a page move followed by the addition of new text at the original title can only be reverted by an administrator. bd2412 T 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Ah so what your saying was you acted independently, without request in your capacity as an admin, whilst misquoting a policy.Blethering Scot 19:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Now you have caught my attention even more. BRD was clearly not followed. You reverted and closed a discussion and reverted a move whilst the discussion was taking place to handle it. Stinks of miss use of tools, especially when you weren't following what you quoted.Blethering Scot 19:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) If you believe that any of my actions were incorrect, I am sure you are familiar with the processes for addressing that. bd2412 T 19:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Yet you cannot justify, nor have even attempted to justify reverting and closing a discussion, citing BRD when that isn't what you carried out. You've admitted you acted as an admin rather than as an editor, so you are expected to justify that based on the policy you quoted when making that edit. The hard facts are the policy doesn't cover closing a discussion taking place, reverting then closing that discussion down. There is clearly no BRD being followed, you closed rather than started a discussion and you reverted after the discussion was taking place. There was no immediate threat that justified a reversion taking aside that policy.Blethering Scot 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC) The discussion was a proposal to carry out the reversion; since it was clear that the proper course of action was to revert the undiscussed move (as the proposal clearly showed it to be controversial), there was no point in continuing to discuss a proposal to revert the move. As a matter of procedure this is no different than the speedy deletion of an obvious test page leading to the speedy closure of an AfD. bd2412 T 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) The proposal did not clearly show it was controversial, it showed someone was objecting but failed to address a reason why. There was a comment and evidence provided in reply that clearly laid out why, and the discussion was underway. If no reply had been made then thats fine but to ignore the discussion isn't, once replies have taken place then you cannot seriously without disguising the edit cite BRD. There wasn't anything there what so ever that justified an Admin action taking place. Now if you hadn't cited BRD then your reply holds weight, but you cited that policy which clearly doesn't cover what you did, if the discussion was under way then there was no need to revert and close the discussion, as you were fully aware in replies that a discussion had to take place either way. Its the closing of the discussion altogether that was the most despicable, you were stopping a justified discussion. You as an editor was bad enough, but as an admin its unacceptable.Blethering Scot 20:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC) By that reasoning, any editor could move any article they want to any title they want, claim that they believe the move to be noncontroversial even if it is thereafter objected to, and nothing could be done about it because moving the article back would require admin action. bd2412 T 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC) No that is not the case at all. If they had asked for admin assistance in the revert, plenty of them to ask and plenty of venues then of course BRD is exactly the same. If they start a discussion (not a request) and people reply and discuss further thats no longer a BRD thats a discussion. Once the discussion has started you cannot cite BRD reasonably. Because there is no longer bold revert, you weren't bold you closed a discussion that was perfectly able to deal with the problem at hand without an Admin intervention. He didn't make a request for admin assistance in any way, he asked for an editorial discussion. Your action was independent not a request. You cant cite BRD once a discussion is properly underway that not BRD. My main issue here is an admin improperly citing a policy, whilst doing an admin action.Blethering Scot 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Gaucho pants listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaucho pants. Since you had some involvement with the Gaucho pants redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Replied, cheers! bd2412 T 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Proposed move of Irish parliament (disambiguation) to Irish parliament You commented in this discussion but didn't vote. So, can I ask you if you understand the proposal? I'm thinking of closing this. As I see it now, it's a fairly innocuous proposal. And I don't see why it would require a lot of redirects to be fixed. Normally there would not (I assume) be very many links to a DAB page such as Irish parliament (disambiguation). If I'm wrong please let me know. It is puzzling that there is a redirect Irish parliament which goes to the pre-1801 parliament, while Irish parliament (disambiguation) is admitted to be ambiguous. I guess it's not up to me to make this arrangement sound logical. Thanks, Replied, cheers! bd2412 T 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Mew Gull Please see the message before yours on my talk page. It's been through Requested moves, and in the absence of a clear consensus, I was asked to move it (over a redirect, so it needed an admin) to IOC name, the default authority for the bird project in the absence of a consensus to do otherwise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC) That is not how "consensus" works. See Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus: In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. This article has been at the title, Common Gull, for eleven years. In order to move it from this title to another title, consensus must be established in favor of the move, or else the long-standing article title, in this case Common Gull, is kept. In this case there was a discussion proposing to move it for exactly the reasons that you were requested to move it, and that discussion resulted in no consensus. bd2412 T 16:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Personally, I prefer the old name, Mew is too American for my Brit tastes, but I voted to move in order to further the aim to have a consistent naming system over all the bird project, except for articles where there is a clear consensus not to do so. As an example of the advantages, a long running dispute over Great Northern Diver (BE and the original title) and Common Loon (AE) was resolved by adopting IOC's Great Northern Loon. It's a pity that what appears to be dogmatic rule following is likely to make such positive outcomes more difficult, but there we are. And please, please, please don't move the loon back to GND, or all hell will break loose ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I have no preference with respect to the title (although, as an American, I can honestly say that I've heard of the name, "Common Gull" and have not heard the name "Mew Gull" before this discussion), but the request was made to move this page, the discussion was properly closed by User:BrownHairedGirl as "no consensus". We don't move articles from long-established titles without consensus to do so, particularly after a discussion has failed to yield precisely that consensus. My advice would be to wait a few weeks, then initiate a new move request and engage in appropriate notification of participants and relevant WikiProjects in order to gain a wider community response. bd2412 T 18:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC) I understand the argument over long-established titles, but this particular species should have been changed long ago. The North American name (Mew Gull) prevails on the IOC website and throughout Canada and the United States (check any North American birdbook). Wikiproject Birds uses the IOC names for its naming convention unless there is a clear consensus NOT to use it. If we continue to use Common Gull for this species, it would fly in the face of the compromises the IOC (and the Wikiproject) have made to accommodate differing European and North American names for the same species (see Black-necked vs Horned Grebe, Hen Harrier vs Marsh Hawk, Common vs European Starling, Little Auk vs Dovekie, Grey vs Black-bellied Plover on the European side, and Red vs Grey Phalarope, Thick-billed Murre vs Brünnich's Guillemot, Common Murre vs Common Auk, Parasitic Jaeger vs Parasitic Skua, Common Merganser vs Goosander on the North American side, etc. The Common Gull would be the only species we use the other continents name for instead of using the name the IOC uses from the appropriate continent....... I strongly feel for this reason the name should be changed to Mew Gull.......My guess is the results will be the same if another move request is initiated. It's too bad the author is too Eurocentric....... Pvmoutside (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Per my suggestion to Jimfbleak, broader notification to relevant projects is likely to yield broader participation, and likely a different result if a better case is made. So far as I can tell, the only argument put forward in favor of this move was that it is what the IOC uses. None of the sort of evidence that you suggest, (e.g., "check any North American birdbook") was presented. bd2412 T 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) The compromise argument was already presented. The argument of looking at any North American birdbook should be self evident.....Bottom line, one can find any convention on Wikipedia to back up a claim to keep a name an administrator chooses to follow. I choose not to participate any longer until the site decides on being less Eurocentric.....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Perhaps I have not made clear how much I don't care which convention is followed. My only concern is that editors who fail to achieve consensus for a proposal do not then choose to ignore the outcome of the discussion and implement their preference despite the absence of the necessary consensus. bd2412 T 03:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC) perhaps no consensus will be reached because too many people have left Wikipedia upset about the overly bureaucratic methods as I am about to do........it's not about my preference, it's about being consistent......Pvmoutside (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I wish you wouldn't leave over this. If you don't like the outcome, work to change the outcome; if you don't like the process, work to change the process. Please keep in mind that from the point of view of an uninvolved reviewer, the discussion here did not come across as a particularly serious or well-presented effort to persuade editors of the correctness of the proposed outcome. bd2412 T 04:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Not worth the fight......other species have been changed after years of stability...i'm done!.....Pvmoutside (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I'm not going to walk, but I'm sorry to see Pvmoutside go. That user has taken on the thankless and tedious task of rationalising the bird names on Wikipedia as a coherent global list. I know that you can justify what you have done, but the fact remains that you have unilaterally overturn the project's policy. You have argued that there should be discussion, but I suspect that without Pvmoutside that's dead in the water. A couple of Australian editors are currently trying to reverse an AGREED move that moved a local species name to IOC to make it consistent with the other 50 species in the genus. I'm afraid that sort of dispute, along with those we have listed above, will become more common if dogma overrides common sense. Life's too short to lose sleep about this though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC) If you think that my actions were at all improper or incorrect, please request a review at Wikipedia:Move review. I find it difficult to believe that this is "the project's policy" if only a small handful of editors could be mustered to support the move itself when proposed. bd2412 T 12:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC) There are a few recent comments on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Page move discussion for Common Gull. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Move review for Common Gull An editor has asked for a Move review of Common Gull. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC) User:BrownHairedGirl closed the discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC) That is correct. The discussion was closed as "no consensus" for the move; the article was then moved despite this close, and I reverted that move. bd2412 T 14:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC) In case User BrownHairedGirl is not aware of the discussion about the name of this page, I have left a message on her talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC) I was going to do just that, but saw that you had already done so. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC) What is the point of WIkiProject Birds adopting a set of internationally-recognized names based on compromise, when those standards are not applied uniformly? This is ridiculous. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC) It seems unfortunate that, in light of that adoption, so few people participated in a discussion to move an article in conformance with it. It is the responsibility of the editors proposing a page move to convince the community to form a consensus supporting the proposed new title. bd2412 T 18:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Other bird moves Can I ask if it's your intention to move the other pages identified by Pymoutside on the Bird Project page back to their original, British English, names? It's clear from your comments that you do not accept the Project's attempt to adopt international standardised names as valid, so I think it's only fair to indicate if you intend to mass revert. And there are a few hundred more where we have changed the names (without move review) less conspicuously, either because the species are little-known in the west, or the changes are smaller (eg removing hyphens where IOC has done so). It's a near certainty that for most of these, people won't bother with hundreds of formal move requests, so we are back to pick a name, any name. Sigh... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC) I have no intention of reverting moves that were made boldly and without objection, or that were made following consensus in a move request. The only problem here is that this move was proposed, other editors objected to it, and their objections were ignored. It is unfortunate that editors who are so strenuously contesting the result of the discussion did not put such effort into engaging the participants who objected to the move during the discussion. bd2412 T 12:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC) NFCC This is a completely separate issue from the trademark issue, but per WP:NFCC, non-free images cannot be used at all on talk pages. Links are fine, but they can't be displayed. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks, that had not occurred to me. bd2412 T 17:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 500,000 ClickUser Verified as 497746 Re:Key request Depending which numbers you follow, sometime in the past week or so I became the tenth Wikipedian to pass 500,000 edits. I believe I am entitled to some kind of key or something. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Per WP:HOLD YOUR HORSES, my ultra-super-hyper-intergalactic-popup thingy says "User:BD2412, sysop, 497746 edits". You need to make a further 2,254 edits, preferably null ones, but as a self-anointed "Independent Wikipedia Investigator" I have looked into the future and ascertained that you will indeed make such edits. Therefore, I invoke my power as a Guardian of the Articles, and present you with: this KEY ... sorry that's the wrong key ... errmmm you can have: this Key to Jimbo's Secret Tropical Hideaway You and a friend can hang out there all week and enjoy raucous debates and mindless skullduggery with Jimbo's regular stalkers. Just remember to return the key to Jimbo's back pocket without him noticing. Regards and "congratulations/commiserations" (please delete whichever doesn't apply to you). Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) I looked it up in Wikipedia, which says that I'm over 502,000. Since I consider Wikipedia to be a highly reliable source, I am going with that number, but thanks! bd2412 T 14:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Have a bunch of keys. Congratulations. SchreiberBike talk 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Here's another key for you VanIsaacWScont 09:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Histmerge Hey BD—per my old RM thread, would you be able to histmerge User:Czar/drafts/Threes (video game) into Threes!?  czar ♔ 02:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Just the history, not the content? Or both? bd2412 T 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, both—sorry. If you overwrite the old stuff, I'll do the cleanup czar ♔ 03:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Done, cheers! bd2412 T 03:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Hey! Not sure if you're around, but if you are, I could use some help with a histmerge from User:Czar/drafts/GTAO to Grand Theft Auto Online. czar ♔ 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Incomplete DYK nomination Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Minette (ore) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) I thought that this had been disposed of long ago. bd2412 T 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Dabs where the primary topic functions as dabconcept What's the protocol for pages like Quadrophenia (disambiguation)? All of the uses are derived from, and linked from the article on, the primary topic, Quadrophenia (except Tommy and Quadrophenia Live, which is a WP:PTM). It wouldn't make sense to have a dabconcept or "franchise" article when the main article does that work anyway. So do you think the dab is useful? --BDD (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC) All notable works derived from Quadrophenia either are or should be discussed in that article, rendering a disambiguation page redundant. However, so long as it is at the "Foo (disambiguation)" title, I consider it harmless. bd2412 T 19:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Absent is the Quadrophenia (and more) tour. Which was a 2012/2013 tour by the band. A possible addition for another disamb link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC) The award for the 10th Wikipedian to have 500,000 edits The key to the room that holds the rolls of scripts inscribed with the secrets of Wikipedia Here, I reward you with the key to THE ROOM THAT HOLDS THE SCROLLS OF WIKIPEDIA SECRETS! For being the tenth wikipedian to pass 500,000 edits! Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Another award Along with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Marzan (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Another award Along with this. The key to deleting vandal's contributions and nuking them. delete Key --Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Mistake You disambiguated to Gaza City in this edit, but the other two terms are regions, so it should probably be Gaza Strip. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Gaza City has historically been its own formally recognized region, whereas the Gaza Strip has never been a "region" in the same historical sense that Judea and Samaria have been. In fact, "Gaza Strip" has only recently had any geographic meanings, as a convenient lumping together of lands that passed through various controlling governments over the past half-century or so. I don't think that it is likely that a rabbi who probably wouldn't even recognize the existence of the division of government controlling the land would, in 1993, have included this modern invention, "Gaza Strip", with ancient regional designations. bd2412 T 01:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC) I see your point, even though in modern term the Gaza Strip is probably the better term for the region. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC) RfD DNA Testing You added a comment about DNA Testing but I think accidetally you missed cos it is added under the section for Katherine Cooks Briggs, immediately above. I don't like to change others' comments but I think you might like to move it. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Well that was weird. Thanks! bd2412 T 17:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC) My Watchlist Dear BD24112, you were previously on my watchlist, but I have removed it. Nevertheless, my watchlist continues to be cluttered every time you start moving all those articles out of your sandbox. Like today. There seems to be a wire crossed, so to speak. Any help would be appreciated. thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) For those to show up, you must still be watching something of mine. I would suggest that you try the [Edit raw watchlist] link on your watchlist page, and then search and delete anything with "BD2412" in it. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC) thanks. I am manually removing them. I thought I had done that, but will try again. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Otherwise, I have a few dozen more of these to do over the next few days, and then I should be done with them for good. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC) I have the same question. I don't have your user page or your user talk page on my Watchlist but I'd say 50% of my Watchlist right now consists of page moves you are doing. And you have a few dozen more?! Liz Read! Talk! 16:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, but once they're done, they're done for good and should quickly fade into the past. I honestly don't know why my userspace stuff is showing up on anyone's watchlist who is not intentionally watching it, except that I have archived my talk pages there from time to time. bd2412 T 16:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC) All done. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Proper close? Hello. Thanks for closing and moving as proposed in the discussion at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's super-G. The only thing I wonder about is if your close was technically correct, as the newly created redirects to the moved talk pages immediately afterwards were updated as if there were a new discussion. (I noticed it, because they're on my watchlist.) In addition, the link to the original discussion wasn't removed from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions by the bot. From my experience, this usually doesn't happen. But it could possibly be attributed to a bug in the RMCD bot. What do you think? Regards HandsomeFella (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Good catch - fixed. bd2412 T 22:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC) WP:USCJ marked as inactive Just notifying you that somebody has marked WP:USCJ as being an inactive wiki-project. Safiel (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I have addressed this. bd2412 T 03:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Talk:Hän people I think that you may have made your comment in the wrong section. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks, fixed. bd2412 T 03:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC) thank you thank you for your support of the RMs I filed, which my regular opponent who created the problems with those title is trying to shut down discussion on. He doesn't want the proposals to get the support they deserve, point-blank, and is trying all sorts of manoeuvres to prevent the reversions; he rarely worked on any article he changed, in fact I don't think he even read them. Noting your interests on your userpage, I'd like to draw your attention to indigenous legal and constitutional cases in Canada; there is no list or article on that yet, though there is a category which should be findable by Delgamuukw v. the Queen, wherever that redirects to now. this is an important legal topic across Canada; in BC complicated by the absence of treaties per the mandate of teh Royal Proclamation of 1763. 'Nuff said for now, though if I create List of aboriginal legal cases in Canada I'll let you know. Interesting reading for a law fan, btw.Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC) It will probably be quite a while before I clear my plate of my current set of projects and begin adding new ones. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Well, here's Category:Canadian Aboriginal case law if you feel like some interesting reading. Many things are not in that category as of yet as the court battles are ongoing and most more recent ones have not yet been added as articles, though many such cases are on band government pages and elsewhere. Then there's things like Fred Quilt inquiry which was not a court case but an inquiry into the death of an aboriginal leader beaten to death by RCMP. Canada's really not the "peaceable kingdom" its international presskit presents it as.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC) here's another much more recent case not concerning an aboriginal person's death, but a Polish visitor at Vancouver airport Robert Dziekański Taser incident; there is a subsequent legal case beyond the Braidwood Inquiry. For another aboriginal death by RCMP see Darren Varley.Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Dabs vs SIAs In this edit[1] you converted a dab page to a SIA. This means that any editors that create a link to that page won't get a bot notification that the link is ambiguous. Is there any advantage in that page being a SIA rather than a dab? DexDor (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC) The thing is, it's not really ambiguous, since the subjects are related, and can be referred to at the same time (e.g. "Joe took both AP English tests") in a way that truly ambiguous subjects generally can not be. In fact, this is exactly the kind of usage that appears in articles like Daniel Hand High School. bd2412 T 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Request for administrative close at Talk:Pablo Casals Before I continue, I would like to thank you for the extensive time you have spent editing Wikipedia. It is due to editors like you that Wikipedia is as successful as it is. There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals that appears likely to warrant an administrative close. I saw how excellently you handled the situation at Talk:Bradley Manning a few months ago and immediately thought of you when considering the current request for comments. The dispute is similar in that it concerns issues such as common name, but in the sense of differences between languages (so MOS:FOREIGN and WP:EN). The standard thirty day duration ends in one week. Would you accept an invitation to close the discussion after this, as you did at Talk:Bradley Manning? The disagreement is self-contained, with references given at Talk:Pablo Casals and no prior knowledge or research of the subject being necessary. I believe that all would benefit from an administrator as familiar and thorough with Wikipedia policy as you. 86.137.43.20 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), the original nominator of the request for comments, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute. I have made a request at WP:ANRFC for an administrator to assess the consensus at Talk:Pablo Casals now that the thirty days are over. If you have sufficient time and would like to do this, then I am sure that the editors there would appreciate your expertise. Of course, if you are busy, then I apologise for troubling you. 86.137.43.20 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute. BD2412, can I suggest please don't close this. I think it will only encourage 131.111.185.66 in these kind of approaches, best to let the RfC close happen by itself. This is nothing like Bradley Manning - this is more akin to an English/Irish article content dispute where the name of an Irish person must be put in English across all of several 100 articles. However I am at a loss to provide a parallel, since I have never seen a similar case before. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC) An exciting month of wiki events! Hello there, I am pleased to say that April will be a very exciting month for Wikipedia in Washington, DC. We have a lot of different events coming up, so you will have a lot to choose from. First, a reminder that our second annual Women in the Arts Edit-a-Thon will take place on Sunday, March 30 at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Coming up in April, we have our first-ever Open Government WikiHack with the Sunlight Foundation on April 5–6! We are working together to use open government data to improve the Wikimedia projects, and we would love your help. All are welcome, regardless of coding or editing experience. We will also be having a happy hour the day before, with refreshments courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation. On Friday, April 11 we are having our first edit-a-thon ever with the Library of Congress. The Africa Collection Edit-a-Thon will focus on the Library's African and Middle East Reading Room. It'll be early in the morning, but it's especially worth it if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of African topics. The following day, we are having our second annual Wiki Loves Capitol Hill training. We will discuss policy issues relevant to Wikimedia and plan for our day of outreach to Congressional staffers that will take place during the following week. There are other meetups in the works, so be sure to check our meetup page with the latest. I hope to see you at some of these events! All the best, James Hare (To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you! Thanks for fixing the links for Elitserien → Swedish Hockey League! Bandy boy (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC) It was no problem. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC) FYI In case you didn't notice yet, User:Tvoz and User:Dezastru have indicated that your notifications about the survey may have been incomplete or otherwise inadequate. Please double-check, and complete whatever notifications are missing. It would be a shame for all this participation to yield no valid outcome. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Since we are still at the very beginning of the process, this should resolve any issue with the appropriateness of the notification process. In order to avoid notifying people who were already participating in the discussion, I had filtered out all of the names on the talk page (which accidentally included more than the names in the discussion). Cheers! bd2412 T 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC) WP Law in the Signpost The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Law for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Is it too late to respond to this? I was on an extended Wikibreak, and missed the posting. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Hillary panel They've had it a week now. What do you think is going on? Impasse? Personally, I thought they closed the discussion prematurely. Just because 7 days have gone by does not mean discussion is complete. It was still very active. --B2C 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) @B2C,User:BD2412 - Ditto on B2C's comments. RfC could have been longer. Hillary Panel could have returned its judgement faster. This is beginning to look like shenanigans to me. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC) @TParis, Adjwilley, and BrownHairedGirl: - Pinging involved panel members to see if we can get a response. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry folks, the delay has been entirely my fault. It was quite a complex discussion to analyse, and I needed more time to think about than I had envisaged. I hope that we will have a decision within the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: - Thanks for the update, and thanks for paying so much attention to the issue! No problems on the delay. Understand that there are a lot of potential complexities here. May be worth posting a note to the talk page in case anyone else is wondering. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC) I am on a Wikibreak, and don't plan to be back until this matter is resolved and done with. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC) @bd2412 - Hope you're enjoying your wikibreak! I you're reading your talkpage comments, you're no REALLY on Wikibreak! NickCT (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC) I'm back. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Hillary Appeal What happened at the Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Requested_move_8 was shenanigans. @Calidum: & I were wondering who was going to lead the charge on an appeal. We were wondering if you wanted air your sentiment on the topic? NickCT (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC) I'd rather not. I strongly disagree with the close, but I would not go so far as to overturn it. This issue crops up every few months, and if you look over the history of the previous discussions, every time the evidence and the support for the move grows stronger. In six months or a year, someone else will propose this again, and the proposal will carry, and that will be the end of it. I do feel that the subpage I created was overlooked, but it is there, and there it will remain. bd2412 T 17:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Ah well.... For the record, we think overturning should be attempted and would lend our support if it was. I'm not sure how much stronger the support for a move can get than in that last discussion. I also think the move will be tougher to make the closer we get to 2016. NickCT (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Quite the opposite, I think. If the subject announces another candidacy and again announces herself as "Hillary Clinton", that will be the nail in the coffin. It may be some time off, but ultimately this move is inevitable. bd2412 T 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Hmmmmm.... Ok. Interesting prediction. If there is no appeal, I'll be sure to check back here in 6 months time to followup on this discussion! NickCT (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC) BD2412, I added some info to your subpage while you were away. I hope it's no problem. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Romanian river disambiguation pages Here are some Romanian river disambiguation pages for longer descriptions: ‎Boruga River ‎[104 bytes] ‎Burdea River ‎[104 bytes] ‎‎Chișag River ‎[104 bytes] ‎‎Cocora River ‎[104 bytes] ‎‎‎Boiștea River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Cașin River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Câlnău River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Cerboaia River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Cheia River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Ciotina River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Comanca River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Crețu River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Doftana River ‎[105 bytes] ‎‎‎Breazova River ‎[106 bytes] ‎‎‎Bădeni River ‎[107 bytes] ‎‎‎Calbuco River ‎[107 bytes] ‎‎‎Covasna River ‎[107 bytes] ‎‎‎Creanga River ‎[107 bytes] ‎‎‎Blahnița River ‎[108 bytes] ‎‎‎Dichiu River ‎[108 bytes] ‎‎‎Bârsău River ‎[109 bytes] ‎‎‎Budeasa River ‎[110 bytes] ‎‎‎Brădișor River ‎[111 bytes] ‎‎‎Blăgești River ‎[112 bytes] ‎‎‎Călimănel River ‎[113 bytes] ‎‎‎Bălăneasa River ‎[115 bytes] ‎‎‎Cumpănița River ‎[115 bytes] ‎‎‎Dragomirna River ‎[115 bytes] ‎‎‎Cracul Mic River ‎[118 bytes] ‎‎‎Bârzăvița River ‎[119 bytes] ‎‎‎Cracul Mare River ‎[121 bytes] ‎‎‎Călugăreasa River ‎[122 bytes] ‎‎‎Bobu River ‎[123 bytes] ‎‎‎Budoș River ‎[128 bytes] ‎‎‎Câlnic River ‎[131 bytes] ‎‎‎Bogdana River ‎[132 bytes] ‎‎‎Drăgan River ‎[133 bytes] ‎‎‎Bordul River ‎[134 bytes] ‎‎‎Cireșu River ‎[137 bytes] ‎‎‎Cășăria River ‎[145 bytes] ‎‎‎Bistricioara River ‎[146 bytes] ‎‎‎Copăcioasa River ‎[146 bytes] ‎‎‎Bolovăniș River ‎[148 bytes] ‎‎‎Călineasa River ‎[149 bytes] ‎‎‎Călmățui River ‎[149 bytes] ‎‎‎Brebu River ‎[150 bytes] ‎‎‎Mânza River ‎[152 bytes] ‎‎‎Criva River ‎[155 bytes] ‎‎‎Daia River ‎[156 bytes] ‎‎‎Deleni River ‎[159 bytes] ‎‎‎Bulzu River ‎[159 bytes] ‎‎‎Valea Groșilor River ‎[162 bytes] ‎‎‎Carpenul River ‎[163 bytes] ‎‎‎Savar River ‎[168 bytes] ‎‎‎Boul River ‎[170 bytes] ‎‎‎Valea Muierii River ‎[175 bytes] ‎‎‎Burla River ‎[177 bytes] —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I will add this to my list of projects to get to. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Two edit-a-thons coming up! Hello there! I'm pleased to tell you about two upcoming edit-a-thons: This Tuesday, April 29, from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, we have the Freer and Sackler edit-a-thon. (Sorry for the short notice!) On Saturday, May 10 we have the Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon, in partnership with the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, from 10 AM to 5 PM. We have more stuff coming up in May and June, so make sure to keep a watch on the DC meetup page. As always, if you have any recommendations or requests, please leave a note on the talk page. Best, James Hare (To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject! Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs. Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing! You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably. You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once! We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold! Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable! Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome. To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature): {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~ To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature): {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~ You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation. Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Category:Songs written by Lisa (musician) It is much easier, quicker and simpler to use WP:CfD when you want to change the name of a category to match the article name and other technical moves. Give me a shout if you need more help on it. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC) I am not trying to rename the category, just to fix the disambiguation link on the page. bd2412 T 11:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Then you wouldn't have made this edit here. Not a problem, it's sorted,--Richhoncho (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Now that you mention it, the category probably should be changed, since it is clearly ambiguous. bd2412 T 23:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Too late now you have emptied the category, as I said, it is sorted. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC) May 2014 disambig contest Thanks for the message - this is new to me - is there a link to this? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC) This month's contest is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/May 2014 - fixes start counting as soon as the month rolls over. General contest information is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Hi, thanks for the invite. I've been using Dab Solver, and I wondered if I need to sign in at the top right of the tool page. I tried a couple of times, but didn't get anywhere. Is that one way the points are counted? - Gorthian (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC) You should not need to sign in to dabsolver for the points to be counted, since the tool kicks you back into Wikipedia to make the save. However, points are only awarded for certain fixes (see WP:DPL for details). Cheers! bd2412 T 11:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you! - Gorthian (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC) My pleasure. Cheers again! bd2412 T 04:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Have you ever considered including the File and/or Portal namespaces in the contests? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I think that would be great, but I am not the originator of the contest, nor do I have any control over how points are awarded. bd2412 T 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Oh, sorry about that! I posted to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Additional namespaces for contest? instead. Thanks for setting me straight! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC) No problem - it's a great idea. bd2412 T 21:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors! please help translate this message into the local language The Cure Award In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award) Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation A beer for you! lets get drunk Jamestownwind (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Meet up with us Happy May! There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out: On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us! Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!) You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month. Come one, come all! Best, James Hare (To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Conchita Could you please add the photo that I have placed in the ITN nomination for Conchita Wurst. She is now mentioned at the ITN section but no photo has been added.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry, busy at the moment. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC) All I was asking for was a edit that takes about 1 minute to complete and is in line with the decided inclusion of Wurst at ITN. You must be really busy.. But ok.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC) It would take a bit longer than that, since I don't know what photo you are referring to, or what an ITN nomination is. bd2412 T 01:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Eurovision_Song_Contest (I imagine the user wants that image used on the front page, but why he is contacting you about it? Beats me czar ♔ 01:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC) I see, ITN = In The News. What is the image? bd2412 T 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Likely the one associated with the nom. @BabbaQ: I'd recommend asking someone on ITN's talk page rather than here czar ♔ 02:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Why make the reader click through twice? Is there any purpose in this? The disambig page has only two items—obviously someone's not going to click through just to get back to the page they came from, so if they're clicking through they're doing so to get to that other item, so why not just redirect directly to covenant (religion), as the hat was already doing? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) I didn't realize that there was only one other meaning - in fact, I'm quite surprised to hear that! bd2412 T 00:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Well, there could very well be other "contracts with God" that nobody's gotten around to adding to the disambig page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I would have thought that there would be books, films, songs, etc. bd2412 T 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC) It looks like someone dug something up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Congratulations How on earth did you delink the University of the Arts, Prestina? I took one look and burst into tears. Brilliant effort. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) It was actually embarrassingly easy once I started looking into it. Faculty of Arts, Univerzitet u Prištini lists their faculty, and virtually all of the links were to pages on these faculty members. bd2412 T 12:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Centijimbos Well, I didn't even know what a centijimbo was until today, but it appears I have 5.8 of them. Finally, a Wikipedia statistical category where I'm ahead of you! They are putting on their parkas in Hell today. Never mind, you just didn't format the template correctly. :-( R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Half of my edits are from fixing links identified on subpages that you create, though! bd2412 T 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Photographer's Barnstar For the image of your own belly-button link. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks! I had actually recently finished revising the Lint (material) article when I noticed the accumulation in my belly button one afternoon, and I got unreasonably excited about the opportunity to photograph it. bd2412 T 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC) SYSTAT (statistics) SYSTAT (statistics) was a case of oopsie. It was a rather disastrous DP, what I have split into four articles. This was the original version. I had the idea that I did every right when creating SYSTAT and the relating articles, but missed the template. The Banner talk 21:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I think you did fine - right solution. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Pseudoscientists Is it just that section which is only for panel members, or the whole page? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I would rather not have to deal with this at all. bd2412 T 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Having looked at the subpage where y'all are discussing the close: can I suggest that you start an RfC to determine whether there is consensus for the idea you've formed? Perhaps it will gain support from the community, but the fact is that it's not something that was supported via a consensus of participants in the AfD. Closing it the way you have in mind would be ultra vires. My particular concern is that a good number of the people currently in the category are identified in reliable sources as "pseudoscientists" without a more specific notion as to what "kind" of pseudoscience they're into -- and I can't see why we would then refrain from categorising them as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC) It is within our remit to delete the category completely if it can not be conformed to WP:BLP, so it must also be possible to employ a solution that comes close to accomplishing that without going so far as deleting it. I don't see how a reliable source can usefully identify a subject as a "pseudoscientist" without saying what pseudoscientific beliefs that subject has. bd2412 T 12:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Can I ask that you respond to the core of my post, which is that it would be desirable to hold an RfC to determine whether there is community support for your proposal? thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Anyone who wants to start an RfC can start an RfC, and it may yield further insight. However, I don't think that this is necessary for the determination that we have reached. bd2412 T 16:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC) I've had a look, and I don't see anything in the deletion policy or guides that authorises a close mandating that a category be unpopulated. I think an RfC would be necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker)3 uinvolved admins, and an uninvolved editor all came to the same conclusion about what the consensus is. Asking for a consensus about the consensus is a type of forum shopping by taking a second bite at the apple imo. If you disagree with the panel's evaluation of the consensus in their closure, you can certainly ask for a review, but those typically don't gain much traction unless you can show there is a major flaw in the close. It is a apparent that the status quo is not acceptable. The #2 solution supported by the RFC is probably to delete the cat all together, which I think you would like even less. Do you have any specific examples of articles that are currently categorized as pseudoscientists, that could not be put into a subcat? Regarding ultra vires " A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time." - the policy that mandates it is WP:BLP and WP:CON a very clear majority of editors argued (quite persuasively) that leaving the category as is runs afoul of BLP. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Helen and Scott Nearing Hi BD2412, Helen and Scott Nearing was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Helen and Scott Nearing. Given that, unilateral deletion didn't seem appropriate; an IP raised this concern at the RFD, and I think he or she was correct. Especially since it's effectively a different redirect, now that it has a different target, you can bring it up again there if you'd like. --BDD (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC) It may be useful to redirect somewhere, but it certainly can't point to Nearing as it is not a synonym for the term. We have an entire project dedicated to wiping out exactly these kinds of links. bd2412 T 03:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC) It's an ambiguous search term, so it goes to a disambiguation page that includes the items that it could potentially cover. Is it really that problematic? --BDD (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC) It's compound disambiguation, a bad habit to get into. By this theory, every married couple in history where both spouses are notable should have a redirect from their his-and-her name combination to the surname page or disambiguation page that matches their surname. George and Martha Washington, Robert and Kris Kardashian, Jane and Tony Smith, Robert and Elizabeth Dole, the list is lengthy, if not endless, and should not be ventured upon at all. bd2412 T 04:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Move review notification Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) You rock bd2412. Thanks for sending these out. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I just realized that I also notified myself. bd2412 T 19:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I also came here to thank you for the thoroughness of your notifications. LOL that you were so thorough you even notified yourself! --MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Sometimes it's good to put yourself on notice. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Bd2412, I was thinking about my last comment to you (about the benefits of large polls of less-informed voters vs. small polls of more-informed voters) combined with your proposal of re-opening the move discussion, and it made me think of an old RfC I participated in once. You may remember it: WP:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Even though it was one of the most controversial issues to hit Wikipedia and was plagued by editors with deeply entrenched viewpoints, I think the outcome was right. I think the RfC was successful for a number of reasons. First, the rules were clear (the Arbcom mandate helped that to some extent). Second, it had a lot of community input from outside the topic area (fewer entrenched opinions). Third, the outside input was still informed input, as the RfC began by educating users unfamiliar with the topic area on some of the sources and underlying issues, but in a neutral manner. The result was a neutral and informative lead paragraph made stable by a strong community consensus. While I'm not aware of precedents of having RfCs for article titles, this might be an opportunity to try something like that: have interested parties from both sides frame an RfC that both sides can agree on, and then open it up to the community with the understanding that the result would be binding for x number of years (hopefully long enough to get us through the 2016 election season). Anyway, it would obviously take some time and planning, and would have to wait until this MR thing blows over, but I think it would be a better path forward than another requested move or a re-opening the old discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I am not against the idea, but I wonder how an RfC would be functionally different from a new move request? bd2412 T 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC) The main difference I think would be the neutral statement of explanation at the beginning and the understanding that the result would be binding. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I kind of like the idea, but would want to see it very clearly delineated into sections (I find that discussions become chaotic where supporting comments, opposing comments, and evidence/discussion are all mixed together). I think the goal of such a process would also need to be clearly spelled out - to determine the best title for encyclopedic purposes, irrespective of both the recent discussion and previous discussions. bd2412 T 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I couldn't agree more. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Adjwilley, are you interested in putting together an RfC? Obviously I have a strong opinion on the issue, but as you were one of the admins who closed the last discussion, I don't think anyone could accuse you of having a nefarious motive in raising the question. There are a number of issues that I think need to be addressed here - how much weight to give to a subject's expressed preference as weighed against that subject's actions in contradiction of that preference; whether "high level" sources should be weighed more heavily in making a common name determination, and if so, how much more heavily; and if so, then what exactly should be counted as "high level sources" (respected newspapers? peer-reviewed scholarly publications? biographies, whether neutral or partisan)? There are a lot of matters to be settled here going forward. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) @BD2412, I wouldn't mind helping out a bit. And I think it would be helpful to get input from involved parties on both "sides" to make sure the wording in neutral. Also, my intent here is not to have it be a policy RfC...I understand that there are debates going on elsewhere over that, and in my opinion the questions of subject preference, weighting of sources, etc., would best be addressed in another venue where there is less at stake with fewer involved users who are emotionally invested in fate of a high profile article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC) There are, however, policies at issue here. bd2412 T 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Indeed there are, but I still think they should be determined separately from the move RfC. If the policy issues are sorted out first, that will make the move rfc easier with more clearly defined policies. If the move rfc comes first, we would have a small section listing relevant policies, where we would note that the policy about x and y is unclear on the matter. What we don't want in my opinion is people trying to change policy because they have strong feelings about an issue. (Imagine for instance people trying to change the BLP policy because they have a specific BLP in mind where they want more liberty to soapbox.) It's like trying to redefine what a foul is in the middle of a basketball game. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker)If you do, you're going to have to word it in a manner that will be more likely to pass. We are not going to consider an articles subjects preference in cases where the preference is unreasonable or isn't the name that the subject became notable under, unless there is a significant event and evidence of reliable sources following suit. Most of the examples([1,2) you gave on the HRC move review wouldn't be accepted. We are not going to change the Snoop Dogg article to Snoop Lion based on preference when the subject became notable under the former and most sources don't refer to the subject as the latter. Or add a non-alphabetic character to an artist that became notable under another name. Then again, it's perfectly reasonable to consider preference(as a factor, but not the only factor) when an article subject has been known by a certain name over a long period of time, but reliable sources often refer to the subject by another name in recent sources. For the life of me, I don't understand why some of the fuss is causing so much discussion. But perhaps an RFC that is worded in a manner that would be accepted by the community would help alleviate some of the problems. Dave Dial (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC) I certainly agree that any RfC would need to be worded as neutrally as possible. On a separate note, I've been arguing the P!nk case for quite a while, and I can tell you that the subject (birth name Alicia Moore) has consistently and unwaveringly used "P!nk" since the release of her very first single in 2000, which predates her notability. She became notable under the name "P!nk" and has never used any other name on anything she has put her name to; the only reason her Wikipedia article is titled differently is because the MOS:TM prefers to avoid "special characters". bd2412 T 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Hmmm. Well that is certainly something I didn't know. Not that I don't know the subject, I have heard or seen her many times and have read stories about her. It can be the way ones mind works when reading. I have certainly seen the "P!nk" reference, but in my mind that was only recently. I always thought she was "Pink". I don't have a problem with either title, but I do know that based on some bots, CMD/DOS scripts that adding such non alphanumeric characters can be a problem. Or at least that's the way it used to be. I'm old and haven't kept up with new technology as much as I used to. heh-heh Dave Dial (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC) The technical aspects of it don't bother me - we have thousands of titles with exclamation points in them (e.g. Wham!, Stop! In the Name of Love, and most egregiously of all, Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!!). To me there is some discrepancy where an inconsistently used "Rodham" is included while a consistently used "!" in "P!nk" is excluded. For the record I would include the "!" in "P!nk". bd2412 T 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC) That's something else I didn't know. So if non alphanumeric are included, I don't see the problem of using P!nk. I can see that many don't want to put in an exclamation point in a name, because it requires a "Shift + 1" action, but it shouldn't matter if that's her stage name and has been consistently referred to as such. In my opinion. Dave Dial (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC) The issue has not been raised directly for a few years now. I am going to put together a move request for that title this weekend. Perhaps consensus has changed. bd2412 T 18:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Barnstar for you! The Minor Barnstar For implementing AWB for someone who knew not how. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Pussy (second nomination) I saw your entry on the nomination page for this particular entry and think parts of the article should be split and formed as a new article called Pussy (Slang) or something similar. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Split into what, though? Dick (slang) must be at such a title because there are prominent uses of the word as a given name or nickname, as a surname, and as a business name. I don't see anything at Pussy (disambiguation) that comes close to competing with the slang term for primacy. bd2412 T 00:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC) EU Hi BD. I'm not sure why the EU redirect is considered "unstable" and needs changing to European Union on hundreds of articles. I've asked a question about this at Talk:European Union. It may just be my own ignorance; if so, I apologise in advance. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Agreed. My watchlist is full of edits which appear to have zero value. I think that mass changes like this could be OK if done in conjunction with other useful edits, and I recognise that some editors like high edit counts, but these changes en masse, on their own, it seems to be a good way of consuming other editors' time in return for negligible reader benefit. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC) How else do we find out if there are pages that link to EU, but intend some meaning other than the primary meaning? I have combed through links to primary topic pages before, link Mouse, to find errant links intending another meaning, and it is far more time consuming than this. bd2412 T 22:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC) That is not relevant. We would find bad links by reading and understanding articles to see if there were any subtle mistakes in links. You did no such thing, because you were making thirty edits a minute, which is simply pressing a button lots of times, rather than applying any serious thought. bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Let me walk you through my thought process in deciding to undertake this task. Every day I check the list of most linked-to disambiguation pages. If a page with an unusually large number of links shows up, I check to see why - this usually happens because a redirect has been turned into a disambiguation page. In that case, I check to see if the disambiguation page is a WP:TWODABS situation (which this wasn't) or if it is otherwise reasonable for the term to be considered ambiguous. If it is, I fix the links, period. If the link goes back and forth between being a redirect and being a disambig, I don't worry about that because someone else considered the term to be ambiguous enough to make the change, and my own review determines this to be a plausible solution, meaning 1) that unintended links might be pointing at the redirect target, and 2) other editors could think the same and implement the change again. Some acronyms, like FBI, are highly stable, with no likelihood of an errant link or a future change in status. This is not one of them, which makes it unstable. Also, please do not mistake the speed with which I work for rote button-pressing. I check every single link before I press a button to see if the fix is correct in context. I am able to do this by having multiple application windows open at the same time spread laterally across the screen, and by checking each window before making the save across all the windows. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Category:Pseudoscientists By creating the new category - but saying that nothing could be put in it until subcategories were created, but saying that everything must be removed from Category:Pseudoscientists immediately, you have effectively blown up all the work put into categorization before letting it be rebuilt from the rubble. It is almost impossible to find out what used to be in a category, so slow, careful guidance is needed if you wish to not throw out years of categorization work. You did not do this in your closing decision A sensible way would have been either to leave the category in place during the recategorization, or keep a list of pages to be categorized. Now? Information has been lost that will have to be ereconstructed. Please behave in a more sensible manner in future. I agree recategorization is reasonable, but there was no reason whatsoever to do it in a manner that basically deleted the work needed to find pages tat should be categorized into the new tree. Hell, they could have been auto-moved into the container category temporarily with a deadline to recategorize. That the most destructive abnd stupid option - to blow the category up and start over - was taken shows a severe lack of judgement. I don't think there was any malice here, but you need to be far more careful in future. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) We never said that the category content had to be removed immediately. I would have thought that whoever was engaged in that process would have first created the necessary subcategories, then done the recategorization, and I don't imagine that this would have taken more than a few hours. I would also think that editors who were aware that this category was the subject of a dispute might keep their own record of which articles were in the category for exactly such a purpose. The closing panel only determined the consensus of the discussion, we did not implement that consensus. bd2412 T 23:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC) So you don't accept there was a failure of judgment here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC) What would you suggest constitutes "a failure of judgment"? The close reflects the desire of a substantial majority of participants on the discussion to impose a substantially restrictive change on the status quo. Anyone who disagrees with the determination of the closing panel is free to take the matter up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Obtuse. The point was explained clearly enough by Adam, and it's unfortunate to see that you're not able to take it on board. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC) The community made the decision. All we (the closing panel members) did was to summarize it and institute a resolution that would implement the clear consensus for a change of the status quo. If you believe that the closing panel made an incorrect determination of consensus, your solution is to seek a review of that determination. If you think that the community itself was wrong, then your displeasure is misdirected. bd2412 T 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Closure of Category:Pseudoscientists CFD Hi BD2412 and ThaddeusB and BOZ Your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May_1#Category:Pseudoscientists appeared to offer a compromise between deletion and retention, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific_fooers suggests that it has merely pushed the problem down to lower levels of the category tree. It seems to be leading to the recategorisation of individuals from Category:Pseudoscientists if it is simply replaced on individual articles by Catefory:Pseudoinsert-your-own-branch-of-scienceists ... which is no progress. So, I think it's time to reassess the close. Neither the closing statement nor the discussion notes show any sign of evaluation of the arguments that the category is subjective and WP:POV, and fails policies such as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It appears to be based on a head count, but as you know WP:NOTAVOTE. Have I missed something? Can you explain how you evaluated the policy arguments, and why you dismissed those advocating deletion? Sorry to come back to you on this, but I think that the compromise isn't working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I would not say that we "dismissed" those advocating deletion; there was no consensus to delete. WP:NOTAVOTE does not empower us to ignore the sentiment of the community where consensus is required to take an action. If that were the case, we wouldn't have discussions at all, we would have rule by administrator fiat - which I believe would ultimately lead to the collapse of the project. The subjectivity of the category is an element of the BLP and verifiability aspects that we discussed, but beyond that our role as encyclopedists requires us to report where a subject is described across reliable sources as an advocate of a pseudoscientific theory. The panel did not suggest the creation of any "Pseudoinsert-your-own-branch-of-science" categories, but categories based on the specific pseudoscientific theory described in reliable sources as being advocated by the subject. Modern-day phrenologists, for example, should be categorized as phrenologists, and the category of phrenologists is properly categorized as a pseudoscience. bd2412 T 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. There are two points there. The first is that arguments should be weighed against policy, and weighted according to their foundation in policy. That's the bit of that analysis that seems to me to be missing. Naturally, we are required to report what the sources say about someone, and per WP:WEIGHT we do so in proportion to the weight of the sources. A point repeatedly made in the discussion was that categories are binary (on-off) switch: 100% in or 0%, with no weighting possible, and that similar POV categs had been deleted for the same reason. Can you explain how you evaluated that argument against policy? Secondly, with in the terms of the decision you made, some editors appear to be interpreting it differently to how you describe. The way I undertsood your close was that if someone was a proponent of the pseudoscientific discipline of Foobargensarianism, then shoukd be ctaegorised in Category:Foobargensarianists. That's fine; it describes them by theory they themselves advocate, and readers can draw their own conclusions about what to make of the theory of Foobargensarianism. However, not all of those described as pseudoscientists appear to fall neatly into one of those particular theories, which is why there is a move to try to classify them as pseudo-somethings. I thought that the whole point of the of the your close was to get away from direct labelling any of these people as a pseudo-something? The problem could be resolved if your close had said that articles could go in a subcat ... but as worded, it appears to be being read as a requirement. Instead of saying "must be recategorized to remove this category and replace it with a subcategory" ... you could say "must be recategorized to remove this category. It may be be replaced with a subcategory". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I would say that if there is no specific subcategory of pseudscientific theory advocacy into which the article can properly be categorized, then the "Pseudoscientists" categorization was erroneous in the first instance. There are similarly lots of people who are widely thought of as idiots, but we have no Category:Idiots, nor subcategories for Category:Idiot politicians or Category:Stupid reality show personalities. As we noted in the close, our determination addressed only Category:Pseudoscientists, and the particular arrangement of subcategories was only advice, not a mandate drawn from the discussion. bd2412 T 19:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Note: if it comes up, I have moved the panel's discussion notes to Category talk:Advocates of pseudoscience/Move discussion notes. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Washington, DC meetups in June Greetings! Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up: On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts! Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia. The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians! Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history. Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit. Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event? Best, James Hare (To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC) May 2014 disambig contest Hmmm, not a clue if I am ending exceptionally high. But ending 10th respectively 5th (assuming that no strange things happen) is very satisfactory. Funny to see that I have not even 12% of your recorded edits overall. Do you have any records of prior months? The Banner talk 11:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC) We have a Hall of Fame that displays the top four winners from prior months. bd2412 T 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC) LOL, I do not even come close to those numbers. The Banner talk 17:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Nomination of Janell for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janell 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/Janell until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)