The most belated congratulations imaginableeditAs I was looking through my old talk page archives, I came across this note you left me back in 2009. I was on wiki-vacation at the time, and never got it. There are currently eight pages needing to be disambiguated according to Dabsolver yet there actually is none pointing to it and there hasn't been for a long long time. I know that its was caused by the tool server when it was playing up but is there not a way to clear these kind of pages up.Blethering Scot 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC) There's no chance of relisting the RM? George Ho (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC) ANI Thread ClosureeditI closed a thread a few days ago as an uninvolved admin but I was asked by two editors, in good faith, to reopen it. I am capable of closing it again, but I think another admin would be beneficial. Would you please close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute and determine the consensus, if any? I've frozen the discussion because there has been little involvement of editors outside the dispute and the thread has resorted to bickering. I thought of you because you and I have next to zero interaction and I was impressed with your thoughtfulness and completeness in the Manning close.--v/r - TP 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There is already Fong Sai-yuk with list of media portrayals. Can you convert this to a set index? --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Missing scientistseditFrom long experience with "missing" lists, it is not enough to bang down the names you have, you have to do a WP search. So the 2nd name on the list, Stuart Aaronson, just needed a redirect to Stuart A. Aaronson. Actual creation of new articles is likely to be pretty slow, but the attempt is a good one. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:EUTooManyStars.jpgeditA file that you uploaded or altered, File:EUTooManyStars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC) It was now re-created as a dabpage again by another administrator. Will you leave it alone or do something about it? --George Ho (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Austrian economics sanctioneditHey, thanks for doing the hard work at ANI in closing the discussion. I took the liberty of reformatting your addition to WP:AEGS to keep it consistent with other similar pages. I hope you don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Precious againedit Courts of the United States --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 295th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Lists of mathematics articleseditIn 2011, to implant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles, you moved a number of lists (e.g. List of mathematics articles (J)) to the WP namespace and suppressed the mainspace redirects. I think the redirects should probably be restored. They get about 1,500 hist per day each (see User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks and it's history), it's clear that regardless of whatever namespace they're in, our readers really want to read them, and the lists are linked to from the article namespace are linked to from the article namespace. Would you object to restoring these redirects, and does the straw poll prejudice against restoration? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Minette (ore)edit
I've nominated Bangerz for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 6#Bangerz. Since you participated in the RM discussion for Bangerz (album), you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. Also, did you notice that you closed that discussion after participating in it? --BDD (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why level-two PC is used, despite "no consensus" in latest RFC discussion. But why not full protection? --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
sockpuppeteditObvious sockpuppetry is obvious. Jhenderson 777 21:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Question regarding a wiki deletioneditHi, I need help with an issue I simply don't understand. I hope your experience as an editor on wikipedia can help me out here. I added a complete new article about the term: "888poker" about two weeks ago. I saw that you had edited its disambig. links which is fine and required. Other editors seemed to have gone over it and all was fine. I even received the brands' approval for uploading unique content like brand logo, in game photo, etc. Items that I believe can improve wiki users experience. Two days ago I found that a user called "2005" deleted my entire Wiki article, simply taking off the page and redirecting it to 888 holdings. I explained the basic difference between a well known brand and it's corporate term and even gave the example of pepsico (corporate) having a wiki as well as pepsi, 7up and all its other brands, which is the exact same situation here. The answer I received was unclear (and even rude). You can see the conversation here at the end of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2005 As all content uploaded was 100% new, informational & non spam. I have no idea why we wouldn't want to actually enhance wikipedia and improve it to users (isn't this the idea of wikipedia in the first place!?) As other editors who went over this did not find a reason to completely remove the article, I feel this is poor judgement by an editor and I request your experience as an editor to see if this is an acutal breach of wiki guidelines and give an editor's second opinion. I would appreciate any help on this issue. The original article can be found on the term "888poker" (view history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.64.29 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC) milesmoneyeditDoes this edit violate the MilesMoney topic ban on LVMI? (With a BLP of a member of the LVMI?) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_North_(economist)&curid=12645&diff=581431302&oldid=581429969 Gaijin42 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed per Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Please double-check if you have done this incorrect change elsewhere. Thanks! PatríciaR msg 11:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!edit
Landedit
Incomplete DYK nominationedit
Colorado SpringseditPlease see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Thank you. --NE2 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Minesweeping as Broad Concept ArticleeditJust wanted to flag up reservations on your request - the whole subject area has a lot of duplication already across various articles. Naval minesweeping is substantially different from demining (you generally use ships or aircraft, versus specialised vehicles or man-portable detecting devices for landmines). At first sight, I'd say that these are two different subjects with some similarities and the same name. I might add more thoughts on this later, but thought an immediate comment was appropriate. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
In the clear light of dawn, I think the issues are as follows: Previously, if you looked up Minesweeping you arrived solely at the demining page which, though it makes one mention of naval mines, says nothing about them or their removal. This subject is, however, very well deal with by the naval mine article and logically sits quite well within that article. (i.e. removal of naval mines is part of the overall subject of naval mines - since countermeasures affect their design). Additionally using the naval mines article as the source of minesweeping information leads into the closely related subject of minehunting. An alternative solution to this problem would be to put a disambiguation link at the start of the demining article that says "this article deals with the removal of land mines, for the removal of naval mines ..."(can't quite get the wording of this right). But this has problems in itself. There is a terminological shift going on. When the minefields of El Alamein were being cleared, that was talked about as "minesweeping". Nowadays the subject is usually referred to as "demining" (on land). Meanwhile naval terminology has really gone over to "mine countermeasures". So if someone looks up "minesweeping", their enquiry may arise from a historical context, or they may simply be using out of date terminology. I think it would be undesirable to have the relative importance of two subjects shifted by one being a disambiguation from another (it implies it is a subject of lesser importance). A further reason for not putting both naval and land mine removal in one article is that, as a subject, demining leads into all the ethical and economic problems produced by landmines. (Yes, this applies to some extent with naval mines, but as far as I am aware, to a much lesser degree and largely historically.) In short, it is a problem what to do with this. I suggest that the disambiguation page (as is) is the lesser of all evils - but I am open to ideas. (Sorry if I sound a bit exasperated.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am revealing myself as something of a novice at this stuff, but I think a few issues still remain. Firstly WP:TWODABS repeatedly talks about "primary topic". To me this terms suggests an element of hierarchy. However, you talk about one topic being "deemed primary", which I translate to mean "not sure which is primary, let's pick this one". This would be the opposite treatment of the "John Quested" example. Secondly, if we use the hatnote option at the start of the demining article, the reader experience for someone who looked up "minesweeping" (with the naval context in mind) would be: (a) type in "minesweeping" (b) get redirected to demining (c) read the disambiguation at the top of the page and have to choose another option. Having already undergone a redirect, I believe that most people would find that irritating (something along the lines of "this computer thinks it is cleverer than I am" - probably true in my case, but I am sure you understand the sentiment). Thirdly, I have in mind the guidance under WP:2DAB "If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name." Of course, there could be a potentially emotional argument over the status of demining as the primary topic - but in this instance we have the advantage that anyone who searches for "demining" gets to that article without any redirects or disambiguation. It is only the reader who uses the older terminology who goes through whatever is finally settled upon. Finally, we have to bear in mind that not all readers have the same degree of computer literacy or familiarity with Wikipedia. So I suggest that editing guidelines should include some thoughts about simplicity of access. That would be relevant in this issue. Sorry to have "got up on my soap box" on this one (not sure if that phrase translates into US English) because, at the end of the day, it's not a massive issue. What we do need to avoid is the previous arrangement (the simple redirect to demining) which took a reader away from a subject that they had nearly found (if they wanted the naval context). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Since "minesweeping" is dealt with as a section of the naval mine article, I presume that you now think the Minesweeping disambiguation page is appropriate. If "Minesweeping" had an article of its own, then the hatnote solution would apply. To write such an article would involve a lot of duplication, since the naval mine and demining articles both cover their own parts of the subject admirably and the terminological shift is dealt with by either reading the naval mine article (which mentions the subject name "Mine Countermeasures" or (subconsciously) by exercising the choice on the disambiguation page that takes you to demining. I've now written much more than I intended on this subject; thanks for your patience. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Commas for tornadoseditI'm a bit disturbed by the outcome of the requested move you closed at Talk:April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak#Requested move. To study the situation, I tried to sort out supporting versus non-supporting commentary, summarized as follows:
I suppose you are correct that the number supporting the move exceeds the number opposed (and I agree that George's views were not especially coherent). However, personally, I consider the supporting argumentation weak, since the move appears to clearly violate the useful WP:MoS guideline that promotes consistency (i.e., MOS:BADDATEFORMAT). Many of the supporting comments seemed to be based on the idea that the guideline should be changed or ignored under certain circumstances, but I would counter with the notion that unless and until a guideline is changed, it should be followed. Other supporting comments seem to be based on the fact that some other titles violate the guideline in the same way as what was suggested here, which seems like something that has a clear alternative solution (i.e., changing the other titles so that they obey the guideline too). The final supporting argument (other than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT) seems to be that the guideline should apply only in complete sentences and not in sentence fragments or titles. However, to me, this seems to be just another way of advocating that the guideline should be changed to include an exception. Unless and until the guideline is changed, I suggest that it should be followed. I suppose I must acknowledge that guidelines should have exceptions, but I don't see a prevailing strength of consensus here that seems sufficient to justify making such an exception in this case. I don't think I have expressed a personal opinion about whether the WP:BADDATEFORMAT guideline is desirable or not. I think I would be OK if the guideline was changed. But it hasn't been changed. My understanding is that a move closure should be based on the strength of the arguments and the relevant policies and guidelines, as well as just assessing whether most people like a suggestion or not. Personally, I don't see how this move closure is consistent with that principle. Of course, I am someone who was on the losing side of the argument, and I hope my thinking is not just a matter of bad feelings generated by that fact. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
How to fix links affected by an article moveeditHello BD2412. Do you know if there's a script or bot that could help with this? Due to an August 2013 move, there are more than 500 links to Newfoundland (island) that ought to be changed to Newfoundland. Do people normally do a bot request for this, or just wait for something to happen automatically? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to Trademark Policy DiscussioneditHi BD2412, I noticed that you've contributed to the trademark article on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has just released a draft trademark policy for consultation with the Wikimedia community. The purpose of the new draft is to facilitate permissive use of the Wikimedia trademarks for the community while preserving protection of the marks. I thought that you may have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion, given your interest in trademark law. I would like to personally invite you to review the new draft and contribute any comments you may have. We plan to keep the discussion open for two months and incorporate the feedback into the final trademark policy. We hope this new version of the policy will make it easier for community members to use the logos to encourage Wikipedia editing. Best, DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC) ConsolationeditI'd move it now off of your subpage and directly to article space, personally, but you should probably have the honors. Great idea, good job, wonderful execution. Red Slash 00:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong button?editI'm not sure which level of protection you intended to place, semi- or full-, but I assume you didn't mean to apply template protection? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to join WikiProject Waimakariri District? If so, please add your name to the proposal page.
The Wikipedia Library SurveyeditAs a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Hi, I note your WP:DABCONCEPT tag, but wonder whether WP:DABNOT might apply; the couple of lines are basically a dictionary definition. Details of the suspension methods, the wheels and other fittings vary between the examples quoted and therefore might be more properly teated at the detail articles. Let me know what you think, and if you're still sure about DABCONCEPT I'll try and expand it a little over the next few days. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you had a few views on this article some years ago. It is now too essay-like, some say. Others wish to keep it. Going, going... gone? Articles for A barnstar for you!edit
Redirect deletioneditHi can you explain why you deleted Marina Rodina with the reason "redirect to disambiguation page with no apparent solution"? And also which policy this was done under.--Sinistrial (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I restored the redirect, but I am unable to restore the damage to your reputation. If you take this to a discussion to get it deleted, I can copy and paste the sources I provided before. Since I provided those in 2010, there are actually even more sources available to prove the connection to the subject. So in the interest of your reputation, I suggest you don't bother.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Just thought I'd let you know that the correct disambiguation for bass is bass guitar, not bass (guitar). I've fixed up your edit to Kerim "Krimh" Lechner to point to the correct article. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please check your Moves regarding Talk:Shi Tao, since it presently consists of a redirect to itself? Thanks, It Is Me Here t / c 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Template:Now Commons to be changededitHey. You participated in the move discussion for 'Already moved to Commons'. Since I closed that with a move to a new name, I'm wondering if I should just go ahead and modify {{Now commons}}. That seems to be the main place where 'Already moved to Commons' was referred to. The template formerly known as {{Already moved to Commons}} is now to be known as {{Incomplete move to Commons}}. The change has already been entered at the sandbox for Now Commons. Unclear to me what I might break by changing a widely-used template, so just tell me if it raises any concerns, or if there is some test I should run first. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
disambiguation contesteditHey, thanks for posting on my talk page about the Nov disambiguation contest. However, unfortunately I didn't get my message in time to participate (I don't jump on here that often), but know that I appreciate you having the contest and challenging others to participate and get the wiki articles updated (and accurate)! Hope you have another contest again in the future too. Zul32 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC) ChristianityeditI'm not too hopeful of Pass a Method discussing the disputed content - I have started two talk page discussions, but Pass a Method kept adding the material back in. An RfC would be really helpful, though there were two distinct issues. But either way, I will step back. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Draft pages for RPG bioseditHey BD2412, hope all is well with you. :) I have been hard at work on bios of RPG industry people, restoring deleted ones, sourcing existing ones, and starting new ones. Please take a look at what I have been doing with the new draft pages feature - any help you can give there may push these closing to being articles once more. :) BOZ (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Hey BD2412, On a somewhat related topic, I have seen a few IP editors posting that Anthony J. Bryant has passed away, but the best I have seen so far is Facebook posts and forums as sources. Can you help me keep an eye on this one, and if possible add any better sources to this one in case what they are saying is true? BOZ (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Tax ChartseditBD2412, you commented on one of the Tax Charts in the Talk:Taxation in the United States discussion. I was wondering if you could further review the discussion and provide your opinion. I'm at a point where I think we've move beyond anything constructive for what seems to be a pattern of WP:PUSH and we're starting to see an edit war. I don't want to go into my thoughts on the editor as I don't want to bias your judgement, but I'm at risk of becoming uncivil and could use third party review. Morphh (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Suggestion about recent editeditHi BD2412! To go along with this edit, should you also update the date/time in your sig? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Shared IP tagseditIn this edit you nuked the shared IP ownership tag as well as the prior block n warnings. Please be more careful with those... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but...editIf you want to disambiguate a link, like you did from Coat of arms of the London Borough of Camden, please make sure the new link goes to the right article. It didn't. I have fixed it now. Thanks for your effort, anyway, and Happy New Year. Arms Jones (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Name BlendingeditSorry for the late response. I'd be glad to see the Name Blending article revived and to do my best to rework it with those new sources. Thanks! Queryedit[1] indicates a topic ban placed on an editor for a specific topic. My query is whether a founder of that group's BLP is also covered by such a topic ban (and where the topic banned article is directly and prominently linked) ? See [2] and a great many article talk page edits where the subject is described in the body of the BLP as "To promote his economic and political ideas, Rothbard joined Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. and Burton Blumert in 1982 to establish the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama." Also [3] about a person who is described as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute. And also numerous talk pages edits on that BLP. [4] another related BLP. [5] another. [6] another. (Stopping at the two week mark -- I suspect there are more if I go back to November 4 for sure). If the topic ban so tightly construed that it lets him edit BLPs about founders and members of the subject he is banned from? If so, fine -- I am not trying to get him into trouble if he has done naught wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
All CreatureseditNice work. I was going to leave the disambiguations until I was done, because there will be duplicates (actors played more than one character). - Dudesleeper talk 22:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014edit
Disambig controversyeditYou might want to keep an eye on Broadway (New York City) today. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC) RfC concerning the article name for BroadwayeditBecause you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, or related to the subject, please see RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Hi BD2412, I noticed that you recently used Requested Moves to get an AFD'ed article back from draft space into article space, so I am trying that here with this subject. You said previously that you would try to help out with RPG related Draft space pages, so I am asking if you can help find any sources for this person. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
|
