It's a pity didn't Pink didn't go through. Perhaps WP:TM can trump policies that supposedly outrank it because it is so simple and widely known. NotUnusual (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, it's a matter of editors holding a widespread POV, and trying to impose order on a disorderly world through it. Also, it is failure to respect the spirit of BLP, but that's a conversation for another time. bd2412T 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to find any guidelines about surname/given name pages, so I'm not sure what to do in a situation like Kato/Kato (disambiguation). Both are now labeled as disambiguation pages. Kato is mostly about individuals with the surname/given name Kato, with a few extra links (KATO radio stations and Cahto people). Kato (disambiguation) has four people on it, along with links to places, and other uses (including the radio stations and the Cahto people and language). Should they be merged? Should Kato be moved to Kato (name) and only have names on it (with the disambiguation page moving to Kato)? Should the non-names be removed from Kato and everything else left alone? I'm not sure what is the best practice/consensus in this situation. -NiceguyedcGo Huskies! 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It generally depends on the relative popularity of the surname compared to other topics. In this case, I have removed the dab tag and the uses that are not names of people. bd2412T 14:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(Moved text to correct talk page>) ) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (9th most active!), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So, O.K. You just did the Smith way... So what was the reason behind my block? Was in the way? Also, can you come here so that we can discuss the issue in one place. P.S. Its my first indefinite block on English Wikipedia, I hope it wont damage my reputation on this site?--Mishae (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I indicated in lifting the block that it was intended to be temporary. bd2412T 04:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, piping the links is fine. Actually, since there is a note at the beginning of the section indicating that these links lead to disambiguation pages, it is not even necessary to include the ", disambiguation" in plain text after the link. bd2412T 16:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Another question: What does {{bots}} do? Like, my initial idea was that by putting it on the lists with deny=DPL bot it will not report to you all about changes. Is it disabled for lists? Since it is enabled for talk pages, maybe it will be wise to enable deny=DPL bot access to lists? Thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Deny bots prevents bots from editing pages; nothing can prevent them from reading pages (which they do just like we do) and reporting errors. bd2412T 17:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
So if their job is to read and report, maybe we can write a bot that will read and report only on articles and not lists and talkpages? Or the technology is not up to speed yet?--Mishae (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I wonder why I was reverted here. You said that piping a link is fine. So, what went wrong here?--Mishae (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are a different kind of page. Disambiguation pages generally should not have piped links, so the reader can see what they are getting (see Mark Jones for example - all the links are unpiped, although in a regular article they would be piped). List articles like those of people sharing a surname, however, are just articles, and can be fully piped. bd2412T 02:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
So in other words, see also section should be unpiped?--Mishae (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Original research problem--blogger quoting himself on Wikipedia
Hey, I noticed that you disambiguated some links to the disambiguation page Palatalization, which has been split into Palatalization (phonetics) and Palatalization (sound change). However, in some cases, I think you have pointed to the wrong article: for instance, Attic Greek § Consonants is referring to the sound change, not the phonetic feature. If you can easily fix this, I would appreciate it; if you're not sure which link should point to which article, let me know and maybe I can do it for the articles on my Watchlist. — Eru·tuon 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It is standard to retarget links from a disambiguation page to the target to which the page is moved. The way to avoid errors in this is for the person moving the page to fix any deviations from this before moving the page. I have changed all the links to the move target, Palatalization (phonetics). Please feel free to review the changes I have made and make any necessary corrections. Cheers! bd2412T 04:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Aha! I see. Thanks for the explanation. — Eru·tuon 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Wgolf (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW-I found a page for Charles Robert Wolle that you also made of for Charles S. Wolle who looks like the same person (even though last time I checked S. is not in the word Robert) Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have corrected this. bd2412T 20:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome, oh I did tag a few of your articles as BLP unsourced as it is likely they are alive, but since they are notable I wont put a prod on them. (I'm sure you will find refs for them, just as long as its before someone puts some random prod for them and everything, but yeah good luck!) Wgolf (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
These can all be sourced to the Iowa Judicial Branch, but my aim was to make the entries first and then add the sources. There is no need to tag anything - I'm on it. Cheers! bd2412T 21:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha no problem, well you can understand though how some people just go ahead and prod them. Well good luck! Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay I was trying to get to the actual page of the link also. Sorry about that. Wgolf (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I am confused - are you trying to remove valid links? bd2412T 00:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No I was going to the profile pages also-sorry about that again, trying to find dobs/and dod for anyone. Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have updated external links to the profile pages for all the pages I have created. Thanks for adding the vital dates. Cheers! bd2412T 00:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
One article for some reason it says the access date code is invalid for some reason. On this one: Warren J. Rees. Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed - just a typo. Cheers! bd2412T 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh on Robert L. Larson it links to a guy from the 1950s though it says he is from the 19th century-pretty sure they are 2 different guys.(and JL Larson linked to Robert Larson but I changed that to deceased as I could tell it was the right guy) Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
When you closed the RM, you moved the article to SYRIZA, but the majority indicated support for 'Syriza'. Alakzi (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is true - though the proposal specified SYRIZA, and only a few comments specified "lowercase", virtually all did write it out that way. Done, cheers! bd2412T 13:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I was in favor of the move. Why did list me as an opponent of it? Charles Essie (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. I was looking for the signature at the end of the previous oppose vote (which was unsigned), and my eyes skipped to the next signature. Cheers! bd2412T 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Torrent frog might be a WP:DABCONCEPT page, but I'm not sure. Most of the links went to the dab page, and were worded very similarly, but maybe that's a normal thing for a topic like this. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Xaxafrad:, I agree that there is proabbly a broader concept to be described here, and I think Legless lizard would be the model for it. bd2412T 16:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a one-sentence paragraph in Hunter's lead that could be easily merged with the first. There is no reason for it to be separate from the main one. Please be so kind to merge them, please. Thank you! 180.191.69.3 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not an article with which I have had any editorial involvement, so I will leave style issues to the discretion of editors who are working on it. Cheers! bd2412T 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I believe in the past you were concerned along with possibly other administrators, about a user:198.108.96.75, who you may have suspected was a sockpuppet for someone else (VandalIST). Just for your own edification (you may actually already be aware of this but the User:talk dialogue was blanked at some point so I couldn't immediately tell if this had ever entered the discussion), the IP address the user was using is part of a range of IP addresses that are included in Michigan's Merit Network which has been part of various test and experimental networks for deployments to the Public Internet for a number of years. At one point, the Merit Network also had routers that were available and open for public users to test and play with until a few years ago. But what is most likely to have happened (rather than an external user gaining access) is that a student from within Michigan's Merit Network which accounted for several different universities that were linked to it directly, gained access to the Merit IP through a computer associated with one of the sister networks (of the fellow universities that comprise it), essentially spoofing Wikipedia's technology, since Wikipedia only records the last IP as the corresponding contributor. Hopefully I have added some further clarity to what could have been at the time, an otherwise perplexing experience. If I did than I am happy to have done so, otherwise maybe this information will be of use sometime in your future. In either case, have a wonderful day... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. Examples include the Edit-a-thon blitz during WikiWomen's History Month and the "new articles" work underway by WikiProject Women Writers. The Wikimania talk proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that our proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review it and, if you wish, give us feedback on the submission's talkpage or my talkpage (vs. your talkpage). Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you'd be interested in the talk if you were attending it (it does not commit you to attending Wikimania). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
After going over your user page, I made the mental effort to add the appropriate, for me, additional licenses to my user page (DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Future and LicenseGPL). Your page wasn't the first, but the last straw in my contemplation over some years of procrastination.
Oh, one more note, I never expected to come across another user like me who cites xkcd as a bullet point there. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for trying to tackle the resilience dabs. I tried, but honestly found too many examples that I couldn't really place - in part, I think, because the collection of articles splits things based on discipline, rather than on reality. Anyway, three dabs that bother me:
All three of these articles are talking about the same thing, more or less. If I had to pick one, I'd say that the resilience (ecology) article is closer, but only because the resilience (organizational) has such an overwhelmingly corporate focus.
The first of these is clearly ecology, it's got ecological in its name, it references Holling and Gunderson. But it covers both ecosystem resilience and organisational resilience. The second one also covers both social and ecological - both organisational and ecology. And the last one is the same "relationships between people and things" is a major chunk of human ecology.
I find all of these dabs unsatisfactory, presumably because the choice of articles is unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, I'm bothered, especially since all of this will probably be lost as soon as the dabsolver page refreshes. Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is indeed the problem of target articles lacking the necessary breadth. In some of these cases, perhaps the best solution would be to unlink the term, or link to the Wiktionary definition. bd2412T 13:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you undid my redirection of Kanak to Kanak people. I've started
a discussion on wether or not to redirect the page. If you've got a minute, please contribute your opinion. Thanks, Liam987(talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd say thanks for noticing that rather embarrassing cock up!, Not sure how the hell I ended up screwing it up but thanks nonetheless!,
Anyway happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem - it happens. Cheers! bd2412T 00:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you were involved in this discussion. I was not around for that discussion. The article is clearly an invention of User:Clusternote, it has been tagged for deletion, but the article inventor immediately removes the deletion tag to unilaterally end the deletion discussion before it can be joined by other editors. The article is, at best, a wp:content fork. The inventor of the article has a clear wp:conflict of interest, and the article accomplishes nothing but to confuse terms. Can you take a look? 65.183.156.110 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Now I'm consulting to administrator about a continuous stalking for over two years by this IP user 65.183.xxx.xxx. (possibly a banned user) --Clusternote (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The article seems fine to me. Well sourced and well written. bd2412T 02:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I fail to understand what is wrong with the disambiguation and why is it a major change or even mildly problematic when Modesto is the name of one of the main historical figures of the Spanish Civil War. (revert undiscussed major change; if you disagree, please file a request at WP:RFD.). I think that the disagreement is a weird quest for exclusivity improper of an encyclopedic spirit. I am not going to pursue the matter further as per my main guiding policy though. Xufanc (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I will be glad to explain the issue to you. Currently, there are dozens and dozens of incoming links to Modesto, with more being made from time to time. Because it has long been understood that the primary meaning of "Modesto" is the city (this redirect has existed for over eleven years), those links are intended to point to the city. Changing the page without first fixing those links turns them all into errors, which someone else has to fix because you didn't - if there is time to get to them at all, with over a hundred thousand older disambiguation links waiting to be fixed. Changing the page without first fixing those links is merely creating a big, time-consuming, aggravating mess for someone else to clean up. Furthermore, it is important to remember that a disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, not an end to itself. We do not create a separate page just for navigation where the navigational function can be accomplished in a more direct way, such as having a hatnote on one page pointing to the other. That is why, per WP:TWODABS, disambiguation pages with only two links are discouraged. The disambiguation function in this case is easily accomplished with a hatnote at the top of Modesto, California. This also prevents the need for the constant maintenance associated with a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412T 00:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand. It makes a big difference to know the background. Thank you for taking the time to explain things in detail. Cheers! Xufanc (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It happens from time to time. Cheers! bd2412T 04:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just run across two "set indices" or SIA pages that look a lot like disambiguation pages. Please tell me the difference, and let me know why they are not disambiguation pages.
A disambiguation page is a collection of unrelated topics that happen to share the same name - Mercury, the planet and Mercury, the Roman god, for example, or Battery, the crime, and Battery, the device that stores electricity. An SIA (set index article) is basically a collection of things which share the same name because they have a common characteristic; for example, guns that fire projectiles weighing three pounds are, by definition, 3 pounder guns. There is no gun that fires a 6 pound projectile but is called a 3 pounder. The reason the things share a name is because they are all examples of things that have the specified characteristic. Other examples would be Gray squirrel (squirrels that are gray), Dwarf star (a range of stars that are smaller than typical stars). bd2412T 03:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on winning the March Disambiguation challenge! I look forward to more friendly competition in the future! Also, apparently I am eligible for a free T-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation for having won, and I can ask you for details. Do you ship to Canada, and if so, would that prohibitively expensive for Wikimedia? wia (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Congrats on your own excellent performance. Do you have an email address that you can associate with your account? That is the preferred way to convey the information on how to claim your t-shirt. bd2412T 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I've just enabled the "Enable e-mail from other users" option. Shall I e-mail you? wia (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do. Cheers! bd2412T 14:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Do you know if there's still a bot that creates "PAGENAME (disambiguation)" redirects to dab pages? I'm trying to determine whether this redirect request is necessary. I always go ahead and make them myself when I establish a dab. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe User:R'n'B was running that task. bd2412T 22:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
As the closer of the recent Greenbelt Station mass move discussion, I wonder how you feel about the fact that all of these pages have now been unilaterally moved to the lowercase. RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
As long as the SIA hatnote generates a disambiguation style message I have no problem with the disambig hatnote being removed. D47817 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, first of all neither of them is a hatnote; they are tags, and they go at the bottom of the page. The SIA tag indicates that the page contains a list of related concepts, which is what we have here. bd2412T 20:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hatnote, tags same difference. My question is does the SIA flag generate a message to editors in the same manner as the Disambig flag? It not we have an issue. D47817 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A message to editors regarding what? bd2412T 21:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A dablink message to editors advising where a link has been created to a disambig page. [1]D47817 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A dablink message is intended to inform the editor that the link they have made is a mistake and needs to be fixed. If the page is a WP:DABCONCEPT, then it is possible for an editor to link to the page without it being an error. For example, Contactless smartcards on the railways of Great Britain contains a link that says "ScotRail issues ITSO ScotRail Smartcards". This was true when the ScotRail at issue was First ScotRail and remains true under Abellio ScotRail. There is no error to fix if the link takes the user to the current ScotRail page, so there is no reason for a message to be sent to the editor advising them to fix the nonexistent error. bd2412T 23:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
BD, I foolishly missed the opportunity to point out what Dekimasu wrote re his previous close of the Greenbelt Station move mess at this review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 December#Greenbelt Station. If you would review that, and if you appreciate the logic of it, perhaps it's not too late to fix the problem per his suggestion: "I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having 'no consensus' default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case." Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that RGloucester has convinced a bunch of people who have disagreed with me in various places, using your AN/I thread as cover, that I'm an ongoing threat. I hope that however that comes out, you will understand that I'm working to resolve this problem, openly discussing every step I've taken, including the out-of-process move when I did it. I feel bad being pilloried this way for my good-faith efforts, but in any case I still need your cooperation with Dekimasu to get this to the obvious conclusion, which is to fix the case error that BDD caused. Can you help please? Dekimasu's suggestion in the review of his previous move close should be all you need. He seems to be rarely on WP these days; I hope he'll speak up.
Of course I also realize that by engaging RGloucester on the Blackfriars Massacre as I did, I probably sealed my fate. Such is life. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure bd2412 is no fan of me, for a variety of reasons. I was particularly upset at one call he made as an RM closer in November. Did I then subsequently file constant new RMs, or unilaterally move the page? No. Can you please stop casting endless WP:ASPERSIONS? I have nothing against you, at all. As I said in the AN/I thread, it is certain that you knew what would happen when you moved those pages. I still can't understand what you were thinking. As you demonstrated that you have such lapses in judgement, a restriction to using the RM process makes sense. It isn't something to feel bad about. You'll still be able to everything you did before, provided you have community consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll refrain from saying what I think about that here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
BD, in case it's not clear, I'm referring to this. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
BD, please also look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)#RfC:_some_proper_talkin.27_about_station_title_conventions, where it seems clear that there is little or no support for keeping these pages are uppercase, and considerable support for following the WP:USSTATION guideline. Does this not clarify that we are indeed much closer to consensus, and that the "weak oppose" and "not broken" responses should be discounted? I suppose we could do a Move Review, but it's probably easier for you to fix it yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
This does present a difficult situation, since there is no reason to give the titles following the first move the status given to titles that have a longstanding consensus. bd2412T 16:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, if you don't think you can fix it, I'll try an MR, and maybe they can: Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Greenbelt Station. 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.
I'm pretty upset with what you just did at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. You "preemptively protected" article, making it impossible to move it. This has resulted in a situation where the article cannot be aligned with the parent article, as it should be. There is no need for an RM, which you have now forced out of process. I can only imagine that you did this because you favour a certain change to that article's title. However, that change has not occurred, and this article must match. Please remedy this situation, or we shall be off to AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't forced anything out of process. This is the title at which the page was created in June of 2014; it would be improper to move it without a discussion anyway (or in any case, if it was moved without a discussion, it would speedily be moved back pending such a discussion, per WP:RM). It would be downright foolish to leave it open to page-move vandals, who can create a sleeper account and wait a few days with a handful of edits to move the page to a string of expletives. Furthermore, even if the page were not move protected, it could not be moved to the title proposed in the current discussion (or the correctly spelled variation of it), because that title is already occupied by a redirect created by another editor. Cheers! bd2412T 21:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I know what've you done. Unprotect the page, or move it to the appropriate title. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the point, if I unprotect the page you still won't be able to move it because that title is already occupied by a redirect, which an administrator would need to delete. Furthermore, the page is already at the appropriate title. This is the name of the campaign, irrespective of the name of the candidate. However, you seem to want to learn things the hard way, so I have reset the move protection to autoconfirmed users. Cheers! bd2412T 22:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand how an administrator that protected the article is participating in a content dispute at that article. Is something amiss? RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The protection of the page took place before any content dispute arose. bd2412T 23:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? You preempted the opposition, which is a cheap tactic. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What opposition? The page was created at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 nearly a year ago, and no one has proposed that it should be anywhere else until this afternoon. You are imagining motivations which are not there, and make no sense since any undiscussed move of the page would immediately be reverted per WP:RM. bd2412T 23:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Any ideas on when you're gonna launch the HRC RM? Excluding a couple minor changes I mentioned on the talk page, it looks pretty clear and concise to me, and you have my congrats on a well crafted proposal.
I understand your reticence to push the RM too close HC's presidential bid announcement. I'm guessing though that given the number of campaign announcements occuring, that level of attention surrounding the subject should recede significantly in the near future. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I want to wait for the Village Pump discussion to wind down and be closed be an administrator. However, I don't intend to be the one to launch this discussion. bd2412T 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
re "I don't intend to be the one to launch this discussion" - Haha. I understand. God save the poor blighter who takes up the thankless task of actually launching that RM. All the hatred and vitriol that he or she will be subject to is not too tempting. ;-)
re "the Village Pump discussion to wind down" - Ok. So maybe in 48 hrs request a close, then wait approx 24 hrs for close? Target 3 days or so. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable time frame. We will also need to draft the actual RM notice (which will go on the article talk page, and direct readers to the subpage) and a neutral notification for all previous participants in these discussions, and the relevant Wikiprojects. bd2412T 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I would be willing to formally initiate the request if no other volunteers can be found. I would like to put together a draft proposal, but that wouldn't be until later this week or this weekend at the earliest. CalidumT|C 03:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what I meant. There are a few things I would like to clean up first. CalidumT|C 03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be most welcome. bd2412T 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on Calidum. We are behind you (albeit at a respectable distance). NickCT (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT and Calidum: I have changed the prospective start date to April 27, since the Village Pump discussion is still somewhat active. I think that it is very important that any potential procedural objections be settled by the community before any discussion starts, to avoid shenanigans. Also, I will be unavailable for a few more days, due to real-life stuff. At that point, however, I am actually thinking that it would be better to push the discussion to May 1, so the page could be moved to a May title and not cross from one month to the next. bd2412T 14:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@bd2412 - Time to request close at the village pump? NickCT (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There are still a few stray comments coming in here and there, but nothing that changes the balance, and the discussion itself has wound down. I have no objection to calling for a close. bd2412T 16:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Closure done. We're still on for the 27th? NickCT (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If Calidum is comfortable with that date. We have two out of three volunteers for closers; one is a non-admin (but has closed RMs). My list of past discussion participants to be notified has been updated. bd2412T 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe include, @Euryalus and Mdann52: in this conversation? NickCT (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Until we have a launch date, there's nothing for any admins to patrol. bd2412T 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess I thought they might have ideas on the appropriate start date.
Are we just going to wait longer for a third closer?
Anyway. I'm taking my lead from you. I'll be ready to send out notifications when the time comes. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't really need a third closer until it's time to close, and I am sure someone will pop up by then. I am fine with launching whenever, since I have nothing in particular to add to the proposal. bd2412T 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I made one or two minor tweaks. I also think it's good to launch whenever. I guess the ball is in brave Calidum's court. NickCT (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move
| new1 = Hillary Clinton
| current2 = Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton
| new2 = Electoral history of Hillary Clinton
| current3 = Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors
| new3 = Hillary Clinton awards and honors
| current4 = List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton
| new4 = List of books by or about Hillary Clinton
| current5 = Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton
| new5 = Political positions of Hillary Clinton
| reason = For the reasons set forth at [[Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request]], it is proposed that
"Hillary Clinton" is her common name, and is more recognizable (particularly to the large population of
Wikipedia readers outside the United States), more natural, more concise, and more consistent with titles for human names.
Please note: '''discussion of this proposal is taking place at [[Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request]]'''.}}
Please feel free to change it as needed. Cheers! bd2412T 20:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. Looks OK. Indenting moves 2 to 5 might be a good idea, as (I think I agree) they logically follow the first. If the first is changes, so should all that follow. Possibly, the first might not happen but 2 and 5 might, for example? However, even if indenting is helpful, it is probably not worth the effort. Generally, I think multi-page moves unhelpfully complicate things, increasing the likelihood of "no consensus", however, this set looks OK, if read.
So the discussion is to take place at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request? That's good. However, it might be necessary to provide instruction to post all comments there. I can easily imagine some simply clicking the edit about the RM message and then typing away. Once one or two do it, so with more others. I suggest inserting at the start: "Notice of RM discussion for this article taking place at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request" (or similar).
I trust you (or someone) will do this in the coming week? It would be messy to have to move the subpage from "April" to "May".
I suspect that this discussion will easily occupy four weeks. Should you slap an RfC template on top, to provide wider advertising, and to imply an expected 30 day discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, since we've had the discussion at length before, and all past participants will be notified as soon as it begins, I don't see any reason at the outset that it would need to run more than the usual seven days for a move request. I would guess that most of the people who are going to participate will say their piece within the first 24 hours, and that by the end of seven days, any points to be made will be dwindling into mere repetition. There is a procedure for extending the period if participants believe that more time is needed. bd2412T 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I place a bet on more than three weeks? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Are people likely to have something new and remarkable to say at that point? Anyone can request an extension at the end of the first week. If discussion has not petered out by the end of the second, it will almost certainly be due to a small number of disputants talking in circles. bd2412T 04:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
To avoid having disputants appearing to continue the discussion, when they are talking in circles around tangential points, I think that having respondents keeping to their section, as in Wikipedia arbitration cases, works well. It encourages participants to address points made by others, over addressing others directly. I sometimes try to do this. The worst thing is when individuals respond similarly to every opponent's !vote, and then compete to have the last word. Once that starts, it is hard to stop, because a non-response looks like silent yielding.
I am expecting some new comments, and a lot of reflection of past comments. An RfC might encourage more comments from people who haven't commented previously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The draft looks good, but I'm going to hold off until tomorrow so I can make a couple last minute tweaks. Is there a reason we're keeping the discussion at a subpage and not the regular talk page? CalidumT|C 18:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Tomorrow is good. The discussion is likely to be long and involved, and would overwhelm talk page discussion of topics unrelated to the page move. Also, once the discussion is concluded and closed, nothing needs to be done to archive it. bd2412T 18:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. My concern is that it gets less attention on a subpage and I feel that hurts the chances of a successful request. CalidumT|C 18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with it belonging on a subpage. One of the reasons for negative feeling towards these repeated heavy RMs is that they disrupt the article talk page. Putting it on a subpage avoids that. A clear notice on the main talk page, with notification of all past participants, etc, will be good notification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. One last question I have is about the note above the support section. I'd prefer to remove it and replace it with a general statement to the same effect in the guideline section above. Both sides should have to give pertinent reasons for or against the move. CalidumT|C 03:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that's fine. My concern is that after the last proposal, the closing admins presumed that "support" votes that did not mention a particular rationale presented for the move did not consider that a reason for retitling the page. Since several rationales are presented for the move, participants should not need to spell out every rationale in every vote, and a typical "support, common name" comment should not be read as somehow being in opposition to rationales like conciseness or naturalness. bd2412T 04:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I just tweaked it [2]. Everything should be good to go, will post in 12 or so hours if no one objects. CalidumT|C 05:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello bd2412. You pinged me at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Size_of_move_request. On the bet, mentioned above in this section, I consider it made. If it closes under three weeks, you win. However, it is not proper for you to administrate or facilitate the closing, both because you are involved as a proponent, and involved in the vote. I probably could have made it go longer by tagged an {{RfC}} template on it, but that would have been cheating. I'm not sure what the terms of the vote were, but if it moves, I guess I have to admit that the community has decided that computational analysis of reliable sources (ngram, google scholar, etc) are acceptable proxies for actual reliable sources, when it comes to usage/titling. If you lose, I reserve the right to ask for a favor one day.
I note at this point that the RM discussion is more civil that I expected. Your discouragement of threaded discussion in the !voting sections I think has positively contributed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Two more days and I win! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Anyone find the delay here a little odd? I can't get the panel to reply to my queries for a timeline. NickCT (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't find it odd at all. The delay last time was longer than this has been so far. bd2412T 12:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess. It would be nice to get some feed back from them on timing. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I would guess that the panel have encountered difficult nuances, such as how the majority waving to WP:COMMONNAME seem oblivious to the linked section pointing to policy on reliable sources, and then coming to an agreed position on the balance of such nuances. It would be odd if a the panel took longer than the discussion itself to find the discussion had a consensus. I fear that this is headed to another "no consensus". If that is the case, then I would suggest a traditional method that assists in finding consensus, which is to ask opposing sides to summarize the arguments of the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Quite apart from any disagreements we may have regarding specific issues, I want to say that I appreciate the way you discuss. In so many cases, people get upset and things get out of control. You do not resort to the unpleasant approach that some others seem to employ. And that's worthy of mention. Omnedon (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. I prefer to avoid interpersonal drama - it weakens stronger arguments. bd2412T 01:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Omnedon's sentiments are seconded. And further, I want to say that I appreciate Omnedon's ability to credit good behavior in those he disagrees with. That is the true mark of a scholar and gentleman. NickCT (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to jump in on this without bouncing it off someone and thought you would be a good person to check with.
There are currently articles for both Junior (education) and Senior (education).
Right now, Sophomore (education) gets redirected back to Sophomore.
The articles for Junior and Senior, as it relates to education are a little thin, but could at least be used as a starting place for h articles to go to clear the disambiguation.
Which is the primary topic for sophomore - Tenth grade - the second year of High School in the American education system, or Sophomore year - the second year of higher education in the American education system? The Sophomore page previously mentioned both high school and higher education in America. I couldn't work out which term, the second year at university or the second year at high school was the primary term, which is why I made a dab page. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the proposition is that there is a general meaning of "Sophomore" meaning the second year in a program, comparable to the existing Freshman. bd2412T 23:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you are asking for. Also, I am going to be away for a few days, and may not be able to attend to anything for that time. bd2412T 11:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your notice. But the huge amount of incoming links to Song Qian is caused by the server lag of Template:People of Eastern Wu, which I updated immediately after I changed Song Qian to a disambiguation page. I can do nothing now except for waiting. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know - I do appreciate your addressing the template. Please make sure to check again after the server updates, in case there are any straggler direct links. Cheers! bd2412T 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412. Today I found that there were still 96 incoming links to Song Qian at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/May 2015 after I moved Song Qian to Song Qian (Eastern Wu) and changed it to a disambiguation page on 19 April 2015. It's unbelievable that the sever lag had not been solved for 11 days. It seems that, to update the links, those articles with Template:People of Eastern Wu have to be edited at least once for whatever reason. I just edited 86 articles with that template (such as this) and finally solved Song Qian's incoming-links issue. What's wrong with Wikipedia's server and why should we edit the articles with the template? I have not seen so serious lag before. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It is a great annoyance, and one for which I regretfully have no explanation. I just fire up AWB and make a blank save and that does it, but it really should happen automatically. bd2412T 15:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kinky boots (boot). Since you had some involvement with the Kinky boots (boot) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi bd2412, in case you didn't know, I just want to bring to your attention that several pertinent changes were apparently made to the article title policy from June 1, 2014 until April 24, 2015, which I found today in this diff. Also, from April 1, 2014 thru May 30, 2014, some further edits were made to that policy. Here's an overall diff from April 1, 2014 to April 24, 2015.
Yes, he makes some good points. Of course, no one is arguing that "Rodham" is never used. The contention here is that it's not the best title, by a number of measures. bd2412T 12:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it's significant that the "nutshell" for the article title policy has changed since the last move request began? It previously said: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Now it says: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Conciseness, precision, and naturalness are all new in the nutshell, and they seem to all support HC instead of HRC. That is, HC is more concise, no less precise, and (being more concise and more normal) it is what people would more naturally search for.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The nutshell is part of the policy, it seems to me. So my comments will probably emphasize this change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a welcome point of emphasis. bd2412T 17:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Please add this to the "Support" section of the draft move request if appropriate at this time, or as soon as possible before or after the thing goes live. Otherwise, I will try to add it myself once the thing goes live, but I'm not sure that I'll be available due to travel (I'm leaving on Sunday):
“
Support Move: During the past year or so, the article title policy has evolved a bit, including the nutshell at the top. The nutshell previously said: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Now the emphasis is different: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Conciseness, naturalness, and precision are all new in the nutshell, and they clearly support Hillary Clinton ("HC") instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton ("HRC"). That is, HC is more concise, no less precise, and (being more concise and more normal) it is what people much more naturally search for (as User:BD2412 has shown).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to create the impression that I am running this show - my goal was to help wind it up and then let others argue it out. You can actually go ahead and add this rationale to the language of the move request now, and leave a note to User:Euryalus asking to place your vote, as he has volunteered to monitor this discussion as a neutral admin. bd2412T 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, sorry to complicate things. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries - I can assure you, this situation always manages to complicate itself! bd2412T 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks. I had asked the stewards to move the article because its edit history precludes admins from moving it; I noted that subpages had already been moved, but did not make such a notation about the talk page. bd2412T 19:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Great. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Clinton RM needs a big sign not to reply in the Survey section ...
Hey, could you or someone put a big very visible notice not to reply or counter-argue in the Survey section, and to post all counterpoints in Discussion? Already two people made that mistake, and since we've got so many rookies, the Survey section is going to be overrun with threads. Softlavender (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, can we (meaning you) remove all that hatted stuff at the top, and also the header "Structural comments", so that all those many headers don't show up in the TOC? Right now, with ten TOC headers preceding the Requested Move, it can be a bit confusing for people landing there to get to the right place. Not that it's a mystery, it's just unwieldy and unnecessary, and possibly confusing. Anyway, if so, thanks. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sheesh dude, bouncing Wiki balls? I think that gave me a little buzz or something. In any case, what do we do about Sock Puppet !votes? I haven't paid much attention, and I know we have several SPA/anon IPs votes that should probably just stay, but a sock puppet !vote should probably be removed, eh? In any case, this !vote from user:Film Guy on Wiki is one such vote. Based on this SPI. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That is support #41, it's been blocked as likely sockpuppet. I agree 100% with DD2K that it needs to be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Done, but isn't this the sort of request that should be going to the admins who have volunteered to monitor the discussion? bd2412T 02:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry dude. I saw it awhile ago when I looked through the contribs and saw the visited blue link to the RM. I wasn't going to do it, so put it off. Then I remembered again, and just thought I would drop you a note. Didn't mean anything by it though. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's fine. It just seems awkward because I am WP:INVOLVED (it would be the same if I was addressing a sockpuppet on the other side). On the other hand, I am strongly compartmentalized - on Wiktionary (where there is a much smaller admin community), I frequently close deletion discussions that I have participated in, and have closed more than a few going the opposite way from my own vote. Cheers! bd2412T 02:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, could you revert and correct your multiple AWB edits linking to "Avars (Caucasus)" instead to "Pannonian Avars"? I thought to do it by myself, but there too many. Thanks.--Crovata (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are these incorrect? The impression from the disambiguation page is that Pannonian Avars are the modern group, and the middle-ages references are all Caucasian. It is standard practice when a page is moved and a disambiguation page put in its place to re-route all existing links to the move target. Once that is done, you can surely go through those and pick out any that should be pointed elsewhere. bd2412T 19:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I see. I think it was the other way around when I started the task. bd2412T 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem, now we have to fix it, helping already, start from the most recent, I'm from the oldest edits, or move on with the AWB edits linking to the "Pannonian Avars".--Crovata (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I got mixed up because "Carpathian" was removed from the title. bd2412T 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe this is all done now. Cheers! bd2412T 22:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
While viewing Justin Trudeau I noticed 2 images had their syntax damaged by leaving out an initial "[" which occured with your edit, which are now fixed. You do so many edits (that I won't check) I trust it is not common. Carry on the good work-AWB and you must be awesome!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpenters Arms 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.
I have weighed in there. bd2412T 12:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of The Doctor (Doctor Who). 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. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You moved this article following an RM. Sadly, you moved it to the wrong title. The proposed title was Faroe Islanders. These people are never called "Faroese Islanders", even though the adjective is "Faroese". This mirrors "Shetland Islanders" and the like. Please correct this error. RGloucester — ☎ 02:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Quite right. Thanks for the correction! bd2412T 02:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, I tried to find a barnstar which fairly described your efforts at the recent HRC move request. I failed. Regardless of how the RM closes, you should know that your efforts were simply, monumental. NickCT (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - a wide array of other adjectives have been directed at it, but this is the best. bd2412T 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Been a while since I checked in on this debate. Just saw the result. I give you joy of a successful close. Restores my faith in the process a little bit after last year's shenanigans. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. What do you make of National guard? DABCONGOV or mil-dab page? I find it odd to have it under mil-dab. It's not a 'unit', rather an institution. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I had not thought about it, but it does seem like a kind of thing. bd2412T 01:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I recently saw your block of Mlpearc for vandalism. I checked over the edits and don't see any vandalism. Was this in error? If so, please be more careful in the future. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please unblock this user and note that it was not "vandalism"? From what I can tell, you have a disagreement on a particular link and decided to revert a revert and then block the user. That seems highly inappropriate and not in line with the blocking policy. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The block was expressly only in place until the editor responded, and was been lifted immediately when he did. This is not a "disagreement" over a link, but a clearly noted disambiguation link repair, for which WP:NOTBROKEN does not apply. I fixed a link to the disambiguation page, heavy metal; Mlpearc reverted the fix as WP:NOTBROKEN, which is at least a careless disregard for the targets of the links, and at worst sneaky vandalism consistent with patterns that I have seen before from vandals. bd2412T 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
That may be the case, but everyone makes mistakes, and blocking someone with a clean block log and nearly 38,000 edits over something so trivial is a bit disappointing, when it was done without warning. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Your statements confirm that the block was not appropriate. Thank you for removing it promptly, but I'd encourage avoiding such blocks all together in the future. Not only were you involved in the dispute with the user, they only made one offending edit that hardly warranted a block - also your reason of "vandalism" was false. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I overreacted, but this was due to my own experience with actual vandals intentionally engaging in sneaky vandalism using similar behavior. bd2412T 21:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, it is a tactic sneaky vandals use. But said vandals aren't experienced editors, and even if they are, you can't just pull the trigger on one incident for an experienced editor. :) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 22:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to be sure that the situation was nipped right away; I do realize that I jumped the gun. bd2412T 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Heya, I hope you're well! I wanted to let you know that WMFers want to take a look at disambiguation as an experience, and I immediately thought to put them in touch with you - so you will be reached out to soonish. I suspect they'll want to talk to other fabulous disambiguators of different language communities. AFAIK right now the goal is just to learn about disambiguation before coming to any conclusions. I have no idea what the time frame is though - might be a few days or a couple of weeks before they reach out, so just wanted to let you know. Hope you all are well otherwise! Cheers, -Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent - I will definitely be up for that! bd2412T 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stop blindly replacing this with a link to French horn. There are many horns that are not French horns and without clearer indication it is often a mistake to assume that is what was meant. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Very well, but any notation of a horn in a symphony or concerto is going to intend the French horn unless another type of horn is specified in the notation. In any case, isn't Horn (instrument) a WP:DABCONCEPT case? De we have an article explaining why all "musical instrument" horns are kinds of horns? bd2412T 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the French horn is a relatively recent instrument. In earlier works, hn could refer to many types of horn. To your second point, perhaps a concept page might be possible, but that's not what it is now. older ≠ wiser 04:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
A hornplayer is often able to play not only the valved French horn but also the natural horn. How can we solve that? "Horn (instrument)" left it open. (If you guess that I think the page move was a big mistake you guess right.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: sorry I didn't see the above, feel supported --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: I fixed one instance where automatically replacing "horn (instrument)" by "French horn" changed an image file name. I have no time for more of the kind. Please check yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Which one was the image file? Also, note that up until this week, Horn (instrument) was a redirect to French horn, so all of these links were already pointing to French horn; all I did was change the links to point directly, rather than indirectly, to their previous destination. bd2412T 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I found the image issue. bd2412T 15:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you have good intentions, - you can't help that the move was unhelpful. I think I secretly hoped that by some miracle it would go away. Imagine something general - example "keyboard instruments" - being moved to something special - example "piano", and then all occurrences of the general changed to specific: no more harpsichord, piano-forte, clavichord, organ. The Baroque and Classical period had no French horn, - in all compositions by Bach, Mozart etc, it's nonsense. Most professional hornists are able to play both and should not be restricted to just one. As a redirect, the reader could at least see that originally the general term was meant, - "French horn" is no improvement where it's not "French horn" but "horn". - Some discussions should not be left to "consensus", - right or wrong are also criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have created Draft:Horn (instrument) to cover this, although most of the information is taken directly from French horn, which does seem to cover the field in terms of the history of these instruments. It seems to me that the French horn is just a technological advancement on the natural horn, and would therefore be, at least, able to be substituted for it for any piece that was written for the French horn. bd2412T 01:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the approach, - when finished that information should leave the "French horn" article. The French horn is a technological advancement of the natural (not an improvement in all aspects), as the piano is a from the harpsichord, - we would/should still not say that Bach composed for piano, - he knew (early) piano and didn't like it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If one of you would like to file an RM to move it over the existing Horn (instrument) (or boldly move it there), I would be gratified. Cheers! bd2412T 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Graham, do you hear us? A move is wanted, and I think it should be uncontroversial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Graham helped me with moving, for example List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function. If he isn't around, we can request an uncontroversial move. - Don't change all French horn back, some may actually be an improvement ;) - Let's wait with the other redirects until this move is done, thanks for looking into the problem! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I will take a leisurely stroll through my previous changes this weekend and turn the generic uses back to Horn (instrument). bd2412T 01:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have provided my opinion there. bd2412T 18:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. I read your post on Japanese Wikipedia. Affect Co., Ltd. is one of the subcontract company of game developers. A subcontract company is almost never credited in Japanese games, so there are few information about the company, and many people does not know the company. I suppose you know Tose Co., Ltd., Tose is a biggest subcontract company in Japan, but there is not much information about the company even in Japanese. I can't also find much about Affect Co., Ltd. in Japanese. Last, but not least, this is not based on reliable sources, but my supposition. You should not fully believe in this information. Regards, --Nyoki2 (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This seems to be in the realm of companies that are fairly productive, but only exist as middlemen. bd2412T 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Weightlifting".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Weightlifting}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have taken care of it. Cheers! bd2412T 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Why you erase the information that I put in the page of Lego Minifigures (theme). By Pie House — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pie House (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You did not add any information; you merely made a large number of useless disambiguation links, including linking words like "of" and "the". bd2412T 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a tag at the top of Exhaustion doctrine that says not enough non-US law. I supplied some Canadian and German law. Do you think you could enlist a UK Wikipedian to provide a subhead on UK law? How about French, EU, Neth., etc.?
There ought to be a WP institutionalized way to get comparative law input from fellow WPians in other countries == at least UK and Canada.
I wonder if I could make a suggestion without meaning offense?
The page's move not that important an issue (perhaps, you and I have just a different understanding and liking on how to perform disambiguations), but it might be a good idea to leave a more complete explanation for it on the article's talk page. Sometimes a revert is obvious (wrong spelling on a page, etc.), sometimes, like this case, it is more complicated. For their very nature, comments have to be short, and they can therefore be interpreted as snappy/patronizing/downright insulting, because there's no space to try a smooth-over (if such a word exists). One editor I've clashed with and therefore followed a bit is apparently not doing it, and whether he was right or not, some of his interaction with other editors made for a sick reading.
Sorry for taking up your time, MinorStoop (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
My edit summary was actually a bit longer than that, but was cut off. However, WP:TWODABS sums up the situation very well, I think. WP:RM requires consensus for controversial moves, and the disambiguation of a page with large numbers of incoming links is inherently controversial, particularly where WP:TWODABS applies. Cheers! bd2412T 19:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No big deal; I may have been oversensitive on disagreements. MinorStoop (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
