My apologies for the page move. I did not realize an actual article once existed here. You are absolutely right, it was blanked and redirected without consensus. If I had known this, I would have actually restored the article's content myself, as this was basically my goal with those edits, and never attempted a page move. I probably should have looked at the article history a bit more closely, but then again an entire unwarranted and unconsensual blanking/redirecting of an article is pretty rare to begin with, especially one that went unnoticed for over two years. Practically vandalism if you ask me... Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 18:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. There should always be some process when something that drastic is done. bd2412T 21:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it, I have another idea - the situation actually used to be the reverse: Major 6th chord once redirected to sixth chord, if you can believe it, but the one who quietly blanked and redirected the latter awkwardly set up an article existing at the former. I have no idea why, it's harder to read than the former/current sixth chord and the article is now a sorry mess. Any substantial contributions were either from the former article or added without citations, and we all know how important those are. Since the whole thing was done without a discussion of any kind whatsoever, I am going to restore that status quo - major 6th chord redirecting to sixth chord since we now have two articles on essentially the same thing except the former is an inferior WP:CFORK of the latter. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 22:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
So long as no information or useful references are lost, I think that's an excellent course of action. Cheers! bd2412T 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth chord (disambiguation) 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. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 22:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Addressed in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412T 14:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year's Eve I am sending you this card not so much because we have had so many warm & fuzzy interactions over the past year as with other editors, but to describe, explain, to you why I was not a part of the recent Cry Me a River name change fiasco. I was very disappointed to discover what I took to be your administrative action in implementing the name change. This is, to me, a clear case of someone trying something again and again and again until they get the result that they are seeking because everyone else was blinking. That this attempt, it seems to me, as opposed to the previous two, succeeded is because of the very low editor turnout, due (opinion) as much to the time of year as anything else. You made, if it was you who made it, a bad call. Too bad we don't have instant reply. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The evidence supported the page move. bd2412T 21:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I see. I don't remember any new evidence, but I'm getting old, older than the 1953 version, so memory is not my strong point. Carptrash (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I weighed the evidence that was presented in the discussion. There is a well-presented absence of a primary topic. In fixing the incoming links after the page move, I found a higher than expected number of links intending the Justin Timberlake song, so I have no doubts in retrospect. bd2412T 21:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Well good, because doubts might just keep you awake at night. Carptrash (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
If you have an issue with the closure, the appropriate procedure is to file a request at WP:Move Review. Cheers! bd2412T 23:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I trust that you acted in good faith. I am just grumpy about where it took you. I understand that being an admin is not the glamour position that it is cracked up to be. You have to make to tough calls, you get the backlash. Carptrash (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I've seen you fixing links to disambiguation pages a few times before. I know how to fix these links with AWB, but I don't know how to make a list of pages including these links with AWB: for example, pages linking to John Smith. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Very easy. In AWB, on the bottom left panel, select for Source "What links here". There are several variations of this on the menu, including or excluding redirects or namespaces outside mainspace. bd2412T 18:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and happy New Year. Going through the list of unreviewed pages, I found this article. Apparently, in 2014 you have made this edit, and today an IP essentially undid it. I essentially agree that the info is potentially encyclopaedic, and I do not see AfD or anything related to the page, so that I reviewed the page. If there is smth I do not know pls feel free to revert me, leaving a comprehensive edit summary or posting a note at a talk page. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This page was deleted by a strong AFD consensus that the article failed the GNG, not simply PORNBIO. The community, by strong and repeated consensus, has determined that a technical PORNBIO pass, without meeting GNG requirements, is not sufficient to support an individual BLP. See, for example, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 9 (Vanessa Veracruz]]; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sascha (actor) (where consensus is pecifically established on the point that porn industy "hall of fame" membership is not enough to support an individual BLP. The discussion you cited as the basis for restoration was limited to a particular wikiproject, not a general community discussion, and was little better than a canvassed discussion. This matter should have been taken to DRV for community review rather than unilaterally restored. It wasn't eligible for WP:REFUND, and there was no reason to short-circuit established community processes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment. However, see if you can't find some additional material to support the article, then. bd2412T 16:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
And what policies, guidelines, or community consensus support your evaluation? Administrative powers are not supposed to be used, after all, to promote one's personal opinions. The community reached consensus that the article lacked sufficient sourcing to meet GNG requirements; the single source you added doesn't outweigh that, and your personal disagreement isn't enough to override that consensus. Admins are supposed to support consensus, not ignore it or defy it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I find notability based on the aggregate circumstances to be clear. The subject already has an unusually high public profile outside the industry for the field. The AVN recognition is cumulative to that. bd2412T 16:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The article could be created anew right now based on the subject's current state of notability - which any editor can do, since it hasn't been salted. This is not admin authority; this is basic editing. The only thing I did that a non-admin would be unable to do was to restore the edit history, but that would be standard practice following the recreation of an article at this title. bd2412T 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
But that's not what happened, is it? You restored an article why, by consensus, failed the GNG, and added a claim which, by consensus, wasn't enough to meet the GNG. Why do you believe we should sidestep DRV when restoring a text which was deleted by consensus, with only minor touchup? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I informed the WikiProject of the restoration, and requested that the additional information be added, which should lead to further improvements to the article. What else do you think I should do? bd2412T 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you should undo your restoration of the article and take the matter to DRV if you think the article merits restoration (although why you want to restore a text riddled with sourcing that is not independent, not reliable, or both is beyond my grasp). The porn wikiproject now comprises a small minority of the users who have been involved in this and related discussions, and is mostly a slice of users who reject the community consensus on notability standards. Providing it notice is not giving appropriate notice to the community. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Please pay no heed to Wolfowitz, he always goes off on one of his little temper tantrums as soon as someone overrules his deletionist agenda. I should add that there has indeed been a problem with deletionist sockpuppets/single purpose accounts appearing at times when these things come up for a vote, so that may explain Wolfowitz's eagerness to bring it to that forum. You asked him to "improve on the article", however, you should know that this is futile request because if you look at his track record, you will see that he NEVER adds or contributes with any content of any kind. Still, you acted perfectly appropriately in in accordance with protocol. That is, new information surfaced, Monique Alexander is now an AVN Hall of Famer, PLUS extensive notable appearances makes her a notable person. The correct procedure in such instances is for the person who deleted the article to restore it, which is what has happened now. All is perfectly on the up and up, so you can hold your head high, T. Holanthony (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Holanthony: Thanks, I'll factor your input into my future thinking on the topic. Please continue sourcing and improving the article to the extent that this is possible. Cheers! bd2412T 20:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed this RM a few days ago. I had previously closed it as no consensus, but the editor who proposed the move reverted the closure. I'm not sure if you knew that as you closed it, whether this is allowed (it seems like WP:OTHERPARENT to me), or, if it isn't, what should be done about it. KSFTC 19:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I was not aware of that. However, after closing the discussion, I went ahead and fixed all of the incoming links, which would be quite a pain to undo. In the course of fixing those links, I found a large number that were intended for meanings other than the previous primary topic, which leads me to think that the current situation will prevent more errors from being created. bd2412T 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah - in the first section. Apparently I was being uncivil towards him by using... ummm.. what it's called.. different text colors? Well yeah, it kinda resulted in some uncivil responses. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, the conduct there does not rise to the level of an administrative response. bd2412T 19:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
So... I should just forget that I've got heavily insulted because I disagreed with a person and apparently in some weird way provoked him just because I used a few bold fonts? Of course, I'll admit that I am no angel either, it's pretty clear I guess. But I did not come close to that level of uncivility imo. You've been here for quite a long time, do you have any suggestions on what I should do then? Bests. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well that's the thing. I think your interaction with the other editor, while not uncivil, is argumentative and therefore likely to provoke an uncivil response. You don't need to combat every response with which you disagree. bd2412T 19:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
What???? We've been arguing that RM for three weeks, a clear consensus has formed to move, and you just close it because the disambig page was not included in the request? Surely it's implicit in the majority of !votes saying the language is primary topic, that the dab page would be moved to Saraiki (disambiguation). I'd beg you to reconsider, because you've just wasted a lot of people's time on a technicality. Thanks, BD2412 — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If the disambiguation page had been included in the original move request, then the answer would be more clear cut, as there would be some consideration for or against there being a primary topic throughout the discussion. However, for the most part, editors participating in the discussion did not address the issue of the existing disambiguation page at that title. This is not a trivial concern, any more than it would be for any other language/people dichotomy. There is a longstanding practice throughout Wikipedia to treat such dichotomies this way (e.g., English, Spanish, French, Japanese, Marathi, Russian, Georgian, Telugu, Tupi, Thai, Zapotec), so there must be a good reason to deviate from this practice. bd2412T 22:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Within the discussion, the primary topic issues were addressed in the nomination's second paragraph, and also in the statements by Kautilya3 "Saraiki" is primarily the name of the language, and other terms like "Saraiki people" and "Saraiki culture" are derived from it. (This is different from "Punjabi", which is equally the name of the people as well as the language). and Kashmiri: The dialect/language remains the primary meaning of the word Saraiki, whereas when used to refer to people, Saraiki is not an ethnonym but a short for "Saraiki speaking person/people".
The move of the dab page was obviously implicit in most of the support !votes and I can't imagine how its explicit inclusion in the nomination could have possibly changed anything in the discussion. (Also noting that there was a notification of this RM at talk page of the dab.)
I ask you to reconsider your close, and I don't think Amakuru and I are the only ones that this has left scratching their heads. – Uanfala (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Despite the existence of exceptions, the vast majority of cases where the same word describes a language and a people are disambiguation pages. See Category:Language and nationality disambiguation pages. I would suggest that the better process in this case would be to file a more fully formed move request in the future, outlining not only the case for moving Saraiki dialect, but also for moving the disambiguation page, and for having the language at that title rather than Saraiki language. bd2412T 00:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you've retargeted to Shirani (Pashtun tribe) all links previously pointing to Shirani, which is now a dab page. That rests on a generally reasonable assumption, as the tribe used to be at the primary title until last month. But many of these links appear in a context where it's obvious the intended meaning is the town, and even when a tribe is referred to, it's not always clear whether this is the Pashtun or the Baloch one. I've fixed two or three links but I won't have the time to fix the rest. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This is fairly standard operating procedure following a page move, and is precisely the reason the editor engaging in the page move is expected to fix errant links resulting from that move. bd2412T 12:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a standard procedure? Is it documented anywhere? I'm really surprised that editor effort should be expended to replace links to dab pages (easily trackable, only resulting in the minor reader inconvenience of having to navigate thought the dab page) with links to the wrong pages (not trackable, leaving readers landing at the wrong article unable to navigate to the one that was intended). – Uanfala (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is the full list of pages edited by me currently containing a link to Shirani (Pashtun tribe):
I have fixed the few that were erroneous, and expanded the link to include "tribe" for those that were correct in that context. Cheers! bd2412T 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing them! I tend to fix such links myself only if they're in templates, or if the dab page was tricky – I normally leave the easy ones for the DPL people who're sure to get more satisfaction out of that kind of work than I could. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. I see that since you are already so involved in the process of blanking old IP talks with OW template, I suppose you could have a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Repeated_IP_abuse.
The following changes will be appropriate:
Replace the the substitution of the old template with the {{OW}}. The old template substitution look like this:
<!--begin:template:s/wnote--><div class="plainlinks" style="background-color:#F9F9F9; border:1px solid #AAA; padding:5px; font-size:0.9em; line-height:1.2em;"> [[Image:Information.svg|30px|left]] '''Note:''' Always remember to [[Wikipedia:Substitution|substitute user warning templates]]. For help on user warnings, see the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings|WikiProject on User Warnings]].<br /><!--
-->''Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|action=history}} page history].''<br /><!--
-->[Admin: [[Special:Block/{{PAGENAME}}|block]] | [{{fullurl:Special:BlockList|action=unblock&ip={{PAGENAMEE}}}} unblock] / Info: [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contribs]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{PAGENAMEE}}}} page moves] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} block log] | [{{fullurl:Special:BlockList|action=search&ip={{PAGENAMEE}}}} block list]]</div><!--end:template:s/wnote-->
Remove old warnings, which are aplenty on these pages
And since if you are doing the above, you'll editing the page anyway, so "fix" the transclusions of the redirects.
I myself am unable to do anything bcoz of an edit filter. Thanks, 103.6.159.66 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Working on this now. Cheers! bd2412T 23:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for troubling you again on this admittedly unimportant business. But you shouldn't be removing the WHOIS/sharedip templates. One case I spot-checked showed that the IP owner hadn't changed, even after several years; and I think that this is the case with most IPs. Even Tawkerbot hadn't been removing these templates (see this). I understand if it would be difficult for you to program AWB to leave out those templates, but that then makes the case even better for a bot to be doing this work. Bots have two additional advantages: (i) the IPs shall not receive any "You have new messages" notification and (ii) mundane tasks being done by bots allows human editors to utilize their time more productively at other work that require human intelligence. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I am only addressing pages from which no edits have emanated in over seven years. For such pages, the IP owner is as irrelevant as any other information on the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of IP addresses. bd2412T 14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
String is now an article with some meat to it. Can you find anything to add to it? The Transhumanist 04:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I would propose finding some information on the history of string. What is the earliest archaeological evidence of humans using string? What is the earliest use of the various listed types of string? bd2412T 04:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Concerning string (cord), I found some instructions on how to make cord out of yarn or thread. But I can't find any references that string is a kind of cord. Can you? The Transhumanist 22:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Affectors (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Affectors (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Tavix(talk) 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Responded there. Cheers! bd2412T 01:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You might want to eyeball Draft:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump at your leisure. It should be ready for article space, but as I have been the only editor working on it, I would appreciate another set of eyes taking a look, in case I missed anything. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't intend to move it to article space until Trump is sworn in and makes his first nomination. Safiel (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I turned one red link in the "see also" section to a hidden link. Otherwise, I think it's good to go. bd2412T 01:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Safiel (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. bd2412T 02:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fusion music. Since you had some involvement with the Fusion music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Responded there. bd2412T 02:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you think Badge of honour should be made into a proper DAB, or should it remain more of a list of awards? I'd at least like to add Badge of Honour to the list, but didn't know if the Badge of Honor novel series should be included as a "see also" (on a list of awards) or as a full DAB entry (on a DAB page). Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that there is a primary topic for the term that encompasses the list; if there are one or two uses unrelated to the concept, these should go in a hatnote. bd2412T 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Saraiki dialect. 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. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Cheers! bd2412T 02:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates (2nd nomination) 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. — JFGtalk 12:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have participated in the discussion, thanks. bd2412T 14:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks - it is I am literally in the middle of responding to R'n'B's point on my talk page a few days ago - [1], which I responded with [2] and abouthalf way through, so your reversion might be in order in one sense, is a bit of a problem in another JarrahTree 02:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
and for the Rm suggestion - I suspect your sense of humour works very well, the backlog at places like that - and your edit summary suggesting it was a controversial move, while I flounder at the re-naming the hundreds of james fox items, yo! JarrahTree 02:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The backlog at WP:RM moves relatively quickly. I have no way of knowing whether you are fixing incoming links to a page, nor is it material when there was an absence of consensus for the initial move. bd2412T 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
exactly, which is why something simple as a quick talk, can find things out and be less of a mess, rather than a simple revert. R'n'B checked me on it, and I was working on it - I fail to see why consensus relates to a single fox outdoing the rest of them - unless the ogre of primacy exists in disambiguation territory as well :) JarrahTree 02:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
admittedly I didnt help by archiving R'n'B's message to me, and my own talk page item of finishingoffsometime - contain links to "James Fox" might not be very clear, so yes, indeed you would have no idea what was going on, as my edit history does not have edit summaries changing James Fox to James Fox (actor) - which would have helped as well, so you are indeed quite right to not have any clue as to what the hell was going on... JarrahTree 03:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Primacy absolutely exists in disambiguation. Whether R'n'B checked you on the appropriate policy following disambiguation is immaterial as to whether appropriate policy was followed in disambiguating the page in the first place. bd2412T 03:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
So what you are asserting then, if I get this right - there are 40 'james fox's, all notable human beings of different occupations - then one can trump them all by being the individual separate above the others on the disambig page and not requiring a qualifier of their occupation? JarrahTree 03:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Different kettle of fish - there is nothing inherently the same as a cultural icon in a US centric online encyclopedia - we are talking about a group of similar named people - the subtlety mightn't be there, but then ... JarrahTree 05:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @JarrahTree: When you call Wikipedia a "US centric" encyclopedia I hope you are using it as a description of the unintended status quo, rather than claiming that US interests should prevail over those of the rest of the English-reading world. Yes, there is an unfortunate preponderance of US editors and articles at present, but that isn't how it should be. PamD 08:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
{ping|PamD}}Language usage, terminology and global regional variation in very simple concepts - such as my recent edits on bookstores and neighbourhoods is part of an endless saga. I would never have thought of even stating what you have written claimed that US interests should prevail... - that is in real life being played havoc enough on the whole planet in the current place Washington (sic) without having to make any statement. I was concerned that the usage of George Washington as being a 'primacy' example is a bit too twee in an argument to compare 40 James Foxes and their heirarchy (in reality or not) JarrahTree 08:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is going to be a continuing discussion, please take it to the talk page of the relevant article. Cheers! bd2412T 12:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
My apology - out of order - the problem I was creating a mass of James Fox (actor) James Fox items without adequate identification as to why or how, and you reverted the disambig item back to where he is now James Fox again. I totally disagree with your revert, but as you and I both point out - there might be issues as to your perception of primacy, and my understanding of disambiguation - the subsequent conversation needs to go somewhere else, however, I leave it to your call as to whether it is James Fox, or James Fox (disambigation) - cheers JarrahTree 12:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your action - trust you dont have to deal with too many idiots like self - cheers JarrahTree 08:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below)
The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.
Hello BD2412. You flagged this page as an incomplete DAB back in 2014. I checked it just now and it looks like a reasonable attempt at covering the use of 'order' in mathematics. It is understood that Order (disambiguation) links to Order (mathematics) as one of its entries. This is what seems to be called 'double disambiguation'. One assumes that double disambiguation is OK. (Though the main DAB page can't resist listing one or two mathematical entries anyway). Are there further steps that would be needed before we can remove the 'incomplete DAB' tag? Do you think it is best to actually *merge* Order (mathematics) into Order (disambiguation)? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The general principle is that the disambiguation page is not expected to be what people are looking for. It is a list of things that people might be looking for when The search for the ambiguous term. Therefore, ideally, nothing should ever link to a disambiguation page, unless it links through a disambiguation redirect to indicate that the link is intentional. A parenthetical like "mathematics" or "number theory" would normally be used to indicate to the reader that they have reached their final destination, the unambiguous topic. This is why we generally do not have disambiguation pages with a parenthetical in the name of the page. Where the parenthetical is itself ambiguous, we generally merge that content into the larger general disambiguation page for the title. I am wondering, in this case, is there a broader concept of order in mathematics covering all or most of the topics on this page? Is it possible to describe a general concept that would be the primary topic of the concept of order in mathematics (putting aside obscure uses)? bd2412T 04:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a word of caution when using AWB, like in this edit, but that reference to "New York" isn't a link to the article on the state, but telling the template to link to Interstate 95 in New York. Your edit created a link to Interstate 95 in New York (state), which is a redline (and would not be a good redirect). Imzadi 1979→ 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That was a manual edit, not an AWB edit. I was about to revert it myself, but got edit conflicted by your edit. Still trying to figure out what in that article is calling a direct link to New York - can you help? bd2412T 00:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the edits. I'm a newbie, so I don't know if I'm even going to use the correct terminology. On your userpage, you have an image with the text "This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals." I'd like to put that on my page, so I tried to get into editing your page to copy the code, but, alas, as you know, I couldn't. Could you please give me the code for that, or direct me to a page that has it available to see and copy? Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't you view the source? In any case, the template you seek is {{User published author}}. Cheers! bd2412T 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, BD2412. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks - I'm glad to still be here! bd2412T 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Just in case I solely contribute to a draft, would the "disfavoring" discourage me from using RM as means of doing so? I have been using AFC process, and chances of my drafts being accepted to mainspace has become 50/50. WP:RM says that newbies and inexperienced editors are discouraged from using RMs to move drafts. What about experienced editors using RM as means of doing so? --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been given a disapproving comment more than once trying this route. You are experienced enough here to know if the page is solid enough for mainspace. If it's good to go, just move it. bd2412T 05:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I see your point about the RM process. Moving on to the Articles for Creation thing, why is Draft:Trent Kelly (coast guard) (which is deleted via my own request) not accepted by AfC? I was working on that article about the Coast Guard petty officer, but I gave up on it because it was considered not meeting WP:CRIMINAL. Also, what about Draft:Edward Leung Yiu-ming? I submitted the review requests five times; the draft has been rejected each time. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak to the evaluations made by other editors. I would find Edward Leung Yiu-ming to be notable enough based on the current state. bd2412T 12:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What shall I do with the draft? And can I contact whoever reviewed the draft? Shall I go to WT:AFC or another venue? --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello BD2412! I want to thank you again for contributing to the Steve Lacy article. I also wanted to let you know that the article you contributed to is being considered for deletion as I did not initially provide proper sources for it. I have since added more reliable sources and have deleted the non-reliable ones. Please vote here (if you chose to): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lacy (musician).
This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
Progress report:
In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogyconnect
(In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial)
I've been doing heavy-duty disambiguation for less than a year. It's fun, but also a responsibility: a bad fix could well stay as a bad fix for ever. I'm mildly concerned that this month's runaway leader seems only to have signed up to Wiki in January 2017, and worry that they might be getting things wrong; they're ahead of several well-known regulars. A quality check by one or more long-time DPL members might be in order. OC if that disambiguator really has got the hang of it, more power to their elbow! Narky Blert (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The thought had occurred to me. I will look into it a bit. bd2412T 01:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have gone through a decent portion of the edits in question, and aside from the volume, I have not seen any red flags. He seems to be working through the list of articles by number of dab links, which also helps explain his high numbers, with about 1600 dab fixes in only 550 edits. At the rate he is going, he will run out of those pretty soon. So far as I can tell, the fixes look right, and the editor is also adding a lot of {{dn}} tags (135 of his edits have added this tag, and about 30 have only added this tag), so he apparently knows when he doesn't know something. He seems to have started this run about a week before the March contest, so he might not even be aware that he's in a competition. bd2412T 23:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have now come across several really good {{dn}} tags by that editor in the March list - the sort of thing where there was a possible lazy (bad) fix, but a DN tag was added instead. I've managed to resolve some by using low cunning and non-English Wikis; every one was a challenge. Narky Blert (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I have not gone over any more of his edits. From the numbers, I think his pace has dropped off a bit, since there are not as many high-volume easy fixes left. I think that is also a good sign. In terms of some of the more difficult disambiguation links in the project, we really need to have a procedure in place to attack the "unsolvable" ones. bd2412T 23:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There are three topics where I pretty much give up at first sight:
(1) Mathematics
(2) Human anatomy
(3) Mononymic people in Indian cinema
(Mononymic South American footballers can be a pain too, but are on the whole less of a problem.)
My #3 may be a hopeless case - dozens or hundreds of thin articles, by similar numbers of clueless uncommitted editors. (How I do wish that editors from the subcontinent would write articles in their native language first rather than in English. I have never, ever, managed to solve a DAB problem about a film using one of their Wikis.)
My #1 and #2 could be attackable. WP:DPL would need to devise a means of identifying those bad links and then handing them over in convenient packages to those editors who have the expertise to solve them. Not easy to do, needs thought. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Just bouncing a new(?) idea around. A "project=" field on {{dn}} which would populate a hidden(?) category in the relevant WikiProject. E.g. Templates with disambiguation links seems to work really well. Narky Blert (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
We had discussed a topic parameter for {{dn}} at some point before, and I think we should implement one. We absolutely need to get the math people involved in fixing the math dabs. It doesn't help that there are often a lot of closely related concepts which might be better structured as something other than a disambiguation page. Human anatomy also has that problem. As for people in Indian cinema, I think that there are some off-wiki resources (IMDB, primarily) that are best for those. I have tremendous troubles with identically names collections of cities in Poland and France. bd2412T 00:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: I've been going over some more of our friend's edits. The one thing he does that annoys me is to create a lot of redlinked INTDABLINK redirects. I might mention that to him, but I've fixed all the ones I found looking over has last thousand edits. bd2412T 03:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't yet seen any of those, but I'll keep my eyes open. (BTW lazy links to (disambiguation) pages annoy me intensely - DPL bot doesn't pick them up, but they are no solution to a DPL bot nastygram, and are useless unless they help readers to find where to look.)
Only France and Poland? I'd say, most of Europe - and also, ambiguous names within U.S. states. I can solve a lot (even the majority) of the European ones, but Poland is a special problem. (1) Lord/Abbot of X often relates to the Castle/Abbey of X, which may have no connection at all with any place called X. Non-English Wikis and Google can often sort those out.(*} (2) In Poland, I suspect that "starost of X" often meant that the king or some other top-ranking noble had said, "You can have the profit from this village without the inconvenience of going to live there. All you have to do is turn up a couple of times a year, act as judge in local disputes, and collect the taxes" - and that it wasn't a hereditary post, so looking at family members doesn't help. (3) The major problem in France, for me, is the World Wars; especially aviation in WWI. A named airfield might have been just a flat spot behind a non-notable farm which the inhabitants had abandoned for the duration. I've seen cases where I suspect that even reading the contemporaneous regimental diaries would not help.
(*) One of my hobbies is linking to non-English Wikis from English Wiki. I think my current count is 105 - languages, not articles, that is.
If you decide to revert more of my edits to dab pages, would you do me the courtesy of first bringing them up for discussion on the relevant talk page? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, that is the opposite of how things should be done. Drastic changes should be discussed first; if they are not, they can be reverted without notice (which you get automatically anyway whenever an action of yours is reverted). I am not at all opposed to cleaning up disambiguation pages and removing partial title matches that are never likely to be referred to by the disambiguation term alone, but not where that cleanup involves blanket removal of entries that are clearly useful entries. I just cleaned up the two incoming links to Relationship. One intended a romantic relationship, the other indicated correlation. If I was using the dabsolver, these commonly needed options would not come up on the list of possible fixes. bd2412T 04:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello user:BD2412. I recently reported an incident about edit war in admission discussion board, and you mentioned it is better to open RfC. After opening the RfC, I message some users (on their talk page) that I was aware that they were actively involved in making and editing election maps and graphs. After Dennis Bratland saw that result that doesn’t favor him, he starts to reject the RfC, and starts to give false accusations. In here you can see a simple fair message that I sent for all those users. Now, he accuses me for “votestacking” and claims that I “handpicked” those users, and now he threats to “close” the RfC!
I tried every single right, true, and legal way I could to advance and end the discussion, and still, he doesn’t accept it, already started his edit war, violates, and starts to give irrelevant reasons to support his idea, without hearing any opinions that he simply doesn’t like. I demand you, as an active administrator, to watch, step in, and help that the RfC doesn’t get lost, while he has tried to crook and dismantle the RfC. Please take my demand into the consideration. Thank you Ali 04:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I will have a look tomorrow night or Wednesday morning, depending on my schedule. bd2412T 04:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
No time right now; will look tonight. bd2412T 14:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Ali 21:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I will have a look tomorrow night or Wednesday morning, depending on my schedule. An AfD runs seven days, so there should be plenty of time. Cheers! bd2412T 04:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for contributing to the article Clay DeBord. When I created this aticle it got deleted the first time. When I made it the second time I was thankful when i saw you contributed and helped. Thank you for saving my article. Izaiah.morris (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I did nothing here but to fix a disambiguation link. I really can't accept this for that. bd2412T 23:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Ali-Illahism—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our wider movement's overall goals. The overall question is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?", but there are many discussion prompts on the talkpage to get you thinking. It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. We hope a wide variety of people will participate, from long-term admins to new editors, from external partners to readers. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (incl. FAQ, calendar and process, list of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc).
(Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, in the weeks ahead, please let me know.) Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - I have some thoughts. bd2412T 00:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hei my frind i need this four codees for kandahar can you please help me this is the codes : top, bottom, left, right. I want to make one map system like this for kandahar in pashto wiki>> < br>return { name = 'Kabul', top = 34.8019, bottom = 34.2142, left = 68.8486, right = 69.494, image = 'Location map Afghanistan Kabul.svg', } Kdh (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That, I'm afraid, is not an area with which I have any facility. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:Blank maps. bd2412T 10:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
