Hi. Instead of simply marking every instance of "aqueduct" as needing disambiguation, why not actually disaqmbiguate them yourself? Most of the time the meaning is clear, and when it is not immediately so, a small amount of research will give the answer. This would be much more helpful than simply tagging the word and leaving the work for someone else to do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The article split seems somewhat nuanced to me. I will go back through and try to pick some off, but I would leave it to the experts who are likely watching the articles to take the first shot at fixing them. Cheers! bd2412T 19:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I note that the target pages are still under discussion. It is probably best to wait until the dust clears from that process before going about fixing large numbers of links. bd2412T 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't A7 a song or record. The performer has an article, so A9 would be out too. As it's a single, you could try prod. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Prodded. Cheers! bd2412T 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for that, but I was really pissed of at the redirect of the article page. Currently this is active. And the real title of the album page should be only 'Good Girl Gone Bad' because it's the most notable of all. So for now you can fix the refs mistake, please. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, on it now. Cheers! bd2412T 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've gone through my edit history and reverted the three instances where I made that error. Since it looks like the discussion will resolve the disambiguation links issue, I'll stop this series of fixes now. bd2412T 17:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks ^.^ — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw your strong background in law and wanted to put in a plug for a law topic upgrade and perhaps an area that could capture your intellectual imagination?
Example legal research article on deep capture [[1]]. I don't have a legal background and all the stuff on legal theory was like visiting the land of Oz to me. However fascinating!
however as of yesterday Senate Investigations [[2]] may at least conduct hearings? [[3]] That group does some nice investigative work [[4]]. I took a look at that Wall Street report and noted 11 Senators, Staff Director, Chief Counsel, Chief Investigator, 4 law clerks, a research clerk, 5 Counselors, Detailees from DOJ, GAO, ICE, SEC; professional staff, consultants, numerous senator's staff, chief and senior investigators, tens of thousands of pages of documents, etc. yet ultimately, not a lot of actual regulatory action?
Elizabeth Warren came out swinging a few days ago [[5]]
I'm an IP lawyer - I avoid banking law like the plague! Well, perhaps not quite that much. bd2412T 03:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Intellectual Property can't (for the most part) be economically protected. I remember when Corning sued Sumitomo over blatant violation of their IP rights to single mode optical fibers. During the march to a slow and expensive, but surely thought to be "just and equitable solution" in a clear cut case, Sumitomo managed to successfully ex-appropriate via deposition every last one of Corning's top scientists daily detailed notebooks, complete with the results of years of incredibly expensive research. As Sumitomo paid their paltry fines on the IP infringement they snickered, having obtained an incredible treasure trove of Corning's expensive research for pennies on the dollar.
Take a look at that stuff on Regulatory Capture, Posner and the article on Deep Capture. It all applies just as well to USPTO functioning "for the public good" as it does to banking. When the system is radically broken it needs to be fixed. Rick (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I know that having information about a topic on a disambiguation page is not a very common practice, however I felt that there should be something in Wikipedia about the Satellite Direct TV marketers. Since you apparently feel otherwise, that is okay, but could you please block the Satellite Direct TV article from possible re-creation? I do not want to see those marketers attempting to use Wikipedia for their advertising purposes again. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The reason we don't have information about topics on disambig pages is that disambig pages are only navigational aids. Think of a disambig page like the index of a textbook. You wouldn't expect to see anything substantive there, just the pages where things can be found in the book itself. However, it may be that there is another article on the topic that should mention something about the company in question here. bd2412T 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, could you please reset the block against the creation of a Satellite Direct TV page? I had asked another administrator to unblock it so I could create an article, but then I realized that the company was too scuzzy to deserve a regular article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! bd2412T 04:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. Congratualtions on making it to the 8 year mark. Very few Wikipedians have been here this long. The community and the project are very lucky to have dedicated editors such as yourself and I thank you for all the time and effort you have donated to the project. Your efforts benefit all of humanity and you and your family should be very proud of this accomplishment. Thank you. 64.40.54.147 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about the disambiguation and you prefering to keep Sex Positive for the film. I tried to revert to what you say, but couldn't achieve the reversal for some reason myself either. But I have no opposition if you want to make Sex Positive film entry the main and you know your way around. We can always make Sex Positive (disambiguation) and keep the main Sex Positive for the gripping documentary. But you should know I have done huge improvements for all those who visit the page now. This is what we had on 19 February 2013 before I intervened: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_Positive_(film)&diff=528140238&oldid=527881460 This is what we have now after my edits of 20 February http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Positive_(film) I am so glad about it. I was watching the film just being fascinated and blown away by this Berkowitz guy.... and I was passing the changes while following the film... werldwayd (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! bd2412T 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at MRSA? Someone has fixed all the incoming links, but I'm sure this fairly common term will continue to attract more links if it remains as a dab page. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on the statistics, I have proposed a move and redirect. Cheers! bd2412T 15:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Great job on this article; it's worlds better than the shabby dab that was there before. Keep up the good work! --BDD (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Mike Cline reversed his close of your move request. We have at least a 4:2 or better vote, but maybe need more supports. Just an FYI that it's still open. Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, thanks for that proposal to unblock Kalki. I really think unblocking him is the only sane thing to do. I got a bit carried away, and I realize that most of my comments on that page were unnecessarily counterproductive (sorry for that) hence I will try to refrain from making further remarks there. I really wish your proposal to be successful. Best regards, DanielTom (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
@BD2412: It is very much to your credit that you are willing to give Kalki a second chance. If K. is unblocked, I certainly hope that you never have reason to regret it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I can assure you, if I were given any such reason, I would not hesitate to reimpose the block with a note that the generous provision of a second chance had been provided and misused. However, I am reasonably confident that Kalki, despite his eccentricities, would behave. bd2412T 04:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Per an AN discussion you started, I have unblocked that user. You may want to watchlist User talk:Kalki and look in on his contribs from time to time, but that's up to you. — Ched : ? 21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, already watchlisted and under watchful eyes. Cheers! bd2412T 21:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool. You've been an admin. a lot longer than I, so I kinda figured you had - just covering my own backside. :-) — Ched : ? 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a question for you, just to understand how it works. How come someone can move a page with no consensus asked or else, and it needs a consensus to move it back to the real name ? I just don't get it.
And why does it need a consensus when the official and only name used by the artists is soFLY & Nius and not SoFly and Nius ?
Thank you, Koffey (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The rule is set forth at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. It is fine to move a nonconforming page to a title that conforms with the rule; where the rule is to be overridden, consensus is needed. bd2412T 11:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Wait? AzMarie? how about in Cycle 16 made a page for Alexandria Everett or Hannah Jones too :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTPMF (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't say I know what you're referring to. bd2412T 03:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I ended up on the Chet Holifield Federal Building page and noticed that it was listed as a courthouse of the Southern District of California. As far as I can tell, it's neither a courthouse nor in the S.D. Cal. jurisdiction, so I removed the reference. It looks like you created the page and you certainly have a lot more experience/clout around here than I do, so I wanted to give you a heads up. (As a very occasional editor, I also wanted to say thanks for the hard work you guys do.) Swsail (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I'll look into it. Usually, my information comes from the GSA or the FJC. bd2412T 11:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at every possible source, you are absolutely right. This building has never been designated to serve as a federal courthouse. There is, of course, always a chance that some court proceedings were conducted there in a pinch, but I have not found even that. Cheers! bd2412T 19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like I reverted you this morning. I can only guess I managed to press rollback whilst editing on my iPod. Sorry! Bevo74 (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. You're a good editor, so I figured it must be something like that. Cheers! bd2412T 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
What is your feeling on (Senate-confirmed) members of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Are they inherently notable, do you think? I don't know if consensus ever has been reached on this subject? Curious what your thoughts are before I go and create a page or pages that might be at risk of being deleted. Thanks! Jarvishunt (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that I would say they are inherently notable. They are appointed for relatively short terms (five years, as compared to fifteen for Federal Claims judges, and lifetime appointments for Article III judges). We could start with an article listing all who have served and providing the dates of service, appointing presidents, senate votes, and so forth, and then determine who on that list merits an article for other reasons. I suspect that it will be relatively easy to find that EEOC appointees either were previously well-published academics, or became such after serving. bd2412T 23:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The supreme standard for these placenames is WP:USPLACE, which I quote: If more than one place within the same county has the same name, and neither is the primary topic, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma (e.g., Callicoon (CDP), New York and Callicoon (town), New York, but not "Callicoon, New York (CDP)"). Since WP:CONLIMITED notes that localised discussions can't overturn project consensus, I'll continue moving USPLACE violations when I find them. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I answered on your talk page, but basically the short answer is that I am concerned about the disambiguation issue, not the page name issue. bd2412T 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear BD2412, could you please check the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder) and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a ... I do not even have words. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. Thak you. RRWM (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is really outside of my area of expertise. Cheers! bd2412T 00:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I get the impression you were trying to change something in the succession templates for the CRT (Chongqing Rail Transit) system, but I'm not sure what you were trying to do. You also mentioned the LUL system, which is in London, so completely unrelated. But if you need any help, let me know, I'm very familiar with these things so perhaps I can help. Azylber (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. The terminal stop on this particular line is Daxuecheng Station (Chongqing), but there are no working instructions for making the link point to this disambiguated page, so the result displays like it currently appears at pages like Qixinggang Station. Fixing this display while bypassing the disambiguation link would be great. Cheers! bd2412T 12:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok. No problem. That can be fixed very easily, but not in the template Template:S-line/CRT right/1. To fix that type of problem, you need to edit this other template: Template:CRT stations. I've already fixed the problems, and reverted your changes in CRT right. Have you touched any other templates? Those changes would need to be reverted too. Azylber (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Nope, that was it. There really needs to be a more intuitive system for fixing disambiguation links in these templates, particularly those caused when a previously non-ambiguous page is moved in favor of a disambiguation page (which is what happened in this instance). bd2412T 00:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It might not be very intuitive to disambiguators, but it is the simplest way to deal with this issue, and we don't have many pages needing disambiguation anyway. We can take care of it perfectly well within the trains wikiproject. If you decentralise the source for station names and article names relationship for each system, you're making everything else a lot more complicated, adding unnecessary parameters here and there and duplicating information. Seriously, a lot of thought has been put into this, and I don't think it makes sense to make everything a lot more complicated for the people working in this wikiproject, just for the sake of making things slightly easier for disambiguators that are not familiar with these templates. And really not much help is needed from disambiguators with these articles, as there is not that much disambiguation work to do in this wikiproject anyway. I hope this makes sense Azylber (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
For the positive work of redirecting three disambigious pages to Asian American article, I present to you this frozen dessert. May it fuel you in your future editing of articles that fall within the scope of WP:USAA. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an editor who needs guidance on appropriately creating disambiguation pages and appropriately using hatnotes[edit]
Hello, BD2412. You may remember me from this discussion at Talk:Sexuality (disambiguation) when it was simply Talk:Sexuality. As I consider you an expert on disambiguation matters on Wikipedia, having seen you around and dealing with such matters, I am wondering if you feel that there is any way that you can help Jarble understand when to appropriately create a disambiguation page and when to appropriately add a hatnote. The editor often overtags, overlinks, adds inappropriate and/or redundant tags, links or hatnotes, and also often creates needless/redundant disambiguation pages. If you look at his talk page, you will see that he has been repeatedly advised and/or warned not to do these things.
The edit history of the Male genitalia page and of the Female genitalia page, including today, also show Jarble's odd interpretation of what should be a disambiguation page. Those pages redirect to Sex organ because the male genitalia and female genitalia are sex organs and that article already disambiguates the different types of sex organs; therefore, what Jarble has tried to maintain at the Male genitalia and Female genitalia pages is completely redundant, as I've stated when reverting him on those matters, but he doesn't seem to understand that. And here and here are examples of his redundant/excessive hatnotes that I've reverted at the Sex organ article.
Furthermore, when he creates disambiguation pages, or wants something disambiguated, it's mostly because he's trying to have Wikipedia be more inclusive of non-human animal aspects. I don't know what else to state to him about these page/formatting issues. But because of the new notification system, the fact that I've mentioned and linked his name above, he will be aware of this message I've left you here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Mainly, I'm just trying to reduce the prevalence of misleading redirect pages on Wikipedia (where there isn't a clear primary topic for a particular redirect page). I created those two disambiguation pages because it was apparent to me that those disambiguation pages had no clear primary topic (i. e., it isn't clear which use of the word was most common in the English language).
I think I understand your point now. Disambiguation pages should only be created when there is no clear "primary topic" for a given term, since the disambiguation pages could potentially be confusing for readers of Wikipedia, and distract them from the primary topic.
Also, I think I may be misunderstanding the definition of "primary topic" as it applies to Wikipedia. Does it refer to the most common use of a term in the English language, or does it refer to something entirely different? Jarble (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
In the cases I have complained about with regard to your edits, you are "fixing" things that don't need fixing and are not misleading. There isn't anything at all misleading about male genitalia and female genitalia redirecting to the Sex organ article, as I've clearly explained above. Creating a Male genitalia disambiguation page and a Female genitalia disambiguation page is completely redundant to the Sex organ article; that article already includes and therefore disambiguates those things. Like I stated, I honestly don't know what else to state to you about these page/formatting matters. I am hoping that someone can finally get you to understand what you are doing wrong. You still overlink, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Accidental overlinking isn't always easy to avoid. I don't usually read every single link in an article before adding another link, since it would be extremely tedious to do so, and I wish there were an easier way to detect redundant links in an article. Are there any automated tools that I can use to find redundant links in an article, and avoid the accidental creation of redundant links? Jarble (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, please review WP:DABCONCEPT. We do not create disambiguation pages for broad topics. The existence of a disambiguation page implies that the terms on the page are wholly unrelated, except for a shared name - for example, the planet Mercury, the element Mercury, and the god Mercury. They can not be collectively referred to as "Mercuries" for any reason other than to group together all things referred to by the word "Mercury". By contrast, while it is true that "male genitalia" might refer to human genitals or animal genitals, it is still possible to write a single article on the general concept of genitals which encompasses both kinds due to relationships between them other than the descriptive term alone. That, in a nutshell, is what it means for term to be WP:DABCONCEPT to one another. In this case, Jarble is correct that Sex organ covers all of the topics regarding terms which could be referenced as "Male genitalia". It would be another matter if there was a planet by that name, or a notable album, although even then the primary topic would be the collection of uses covered at Sex organ. bd2412T 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amakasu clan. This explains the newest changes at Amakasu clan. As context, you may want to know that I created the disambiguation page in response to a good suggestion which you can read for yourself in the AfD thread. I did post link at Talk:Amakasu clan#AfD discussion, but I guess I should have made further changes after the AfD was closed. --Ansei (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
In other words, the two fictional/gaming clans are the only groups by that name? bd2412T 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, for example, the Amakasu are not listed in Edmund Papinot's Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie du Japon; Papinot, (2003). Nobiliare du Japon, p. 2.
There are a few individual historical figures with this name, for example, Amakasu Kagemochi; but, for example, there is no 甘糟氏 listed in Nihon jinmei daijiten. --Ansei (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, I reverted your addition of your new article Efforts to impeach Barack Obama to the "See also" section of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, without having space in my edit summary to fully explain why. My thinking is that if you were to include a source for an effort to impeach Barack Obama which was based on doubts about his citizenship, then it would be useful to have it as a See also in the conspiracy theories article. But as long as that part, the relevant part, is only an unsourced statement, I don't see that it adds anything to what can already be read in the longer article. Linking to the longer article in Efforts to impeach Barack Obama (as you do in its text) is very appropriate, but not so much the other way around, IMO. But perhaps you're still adding references? Please don't be offended, and feel free to add it back if you disagree. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC).
One of the first things I found in beginning this article is this petition to impeach based on the citizenship issue. However, I am still searching for sources for each of the various points for which politicians and commentators have raised as possible grounds for impeachment. bd2412T 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello BD2412. See User talk:In ictu oculi#Partially disambiguated titles. Without wanting to steer the main discussion over to IIO's page, can I ask you a similar question? Do you see the proposed new language for WP:DAB as preventing article names like Cork (city)? That example is on your user page. I see no urgency to quickly closing the discussion, but if the ratio doesn't change, it seems likely that there will be support for some kind of change in WP:DAB. There may still be some room for negotiation, because I'm unclear on whether all participants understand the proposal in the same way. For instance, Neelix and IIO are both supporters, but they seem to have different concepts. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My reading of that language is that it would not specifically require Cork (city) to be moved because there is no other "city" named Cork. However, there may be other pages with the disambiguator (city) to which the policy would apply. bd2412T 02:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
11:53, 3 June 2013 BD2412 (talk | contribs) m . . (10,157 bytes) (0) . . (BD2412 moved page Maroon (color) to Maroon: per CSD request) (undo | thank)
Hi BD2412,
You moved Maroon, citing "per CSD request". What does this mean? Was there a discussion or proposal or request somewhere? It is not obvious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Per the request in this version of the page. So far as I can tell, there was never any discussion about moving the page anywhere. Per the log, User:Anthony Appleyard boldly moved the disambig page to this title, and User:Red Slash partially reverted, but was unable to finish the job without administrative assistance. Since this is a routine part of the WP:BRD cycle (and since the initial move created hundreds of disambiguation links with no apparent plan to deal with them), I was pleased to offer the assistance requested. This is the point at which a discussion should begin, if there are editors who do not like the state of affairs as they had existed for the previous three years. Cheers! bd2412T 02:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was used to "Maroon (color)", and had not had a look at the log for the page. I was thinking that there was a discussion somewhere that I couldn't find. I am not unhappy with anything here. Thanks again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to me so I got to see this, BD2412. Maroon has been redirecting to the color article at maroon (color) for almost three years, and so I listed a move from maroon (color) to maroon (which again, has been redirecting to maroon (color) for almost three years without problem or complaint) at WP:RMT. Unfortunately, an administrator there decided to instead move maroon (disambiguation) to the plain title, so I reverted that move and put the CSD on maroon. Thank you, BD2412, and hopefully I'll learn my lesson and avoid WP:RMT in cases like this. Red Slash 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Why change links from 'National Film Award' to 'National Film Award (India)' when it redirects right back to 'National Film Award'? BollyJeff|talk 13:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
But the India one still redirects. I hope someone knows how much work they created and got consensus first. I did not see any discussions. BollyJeff|talk 13:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I sympathize. As a disambiguator, I see these changes made every single day, sometimes to articles or redirects with thousands of incoming links. I do not know enough about the topic to presume that there is a primary meaning to which the link should redirect, so I can only fix the links. I point them through a redirect intentionally so that they will be easy to find if they need to be changed again later (for example, if National Film Awards is moved to National Film Awards (India). bd2412T 14:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to your question as "bullshit" in the SPI discussion. Rather the ridiculous quacking duck situation of DiogoTome having the same childish attitude and running straight to ANI with his first edits as his brother. No offense to you intended at all. Toddst1 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi BD, I appreciate your entries at the DanielTom SPI page. My entries there have been for sole purpose of having the misapplied "sockpuppetry" label removed from Daniel's old account User:Daniel Tomé, out of fairness to him. Thank you for any help as I'm out of my comfort zone with the SPI processes, and there seem to be several Admins determined to work against my effort. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
When multiple admins tell you you're off the mark, that's usually a good hint that your effort is grossly misguided. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Todd, no one has given me an explanation how "sockpuppet" can be reasonably applied, including you. (Your only justification was the single re-use of the old username that you linked. I showed you how Daniel corrected the posting username 2 mintues after that post, indicating clearly it was inadvertent use of his old username, and attempting to hide or conceal nothing.) I asked you how it is reasonable therefore, what justification is there, to leave the "sockpuppet" label on that account. You didn't answer back. (Only your non-answer above, attempting to shame me, not on the issues or facts.) I don't have an answer from you or anyone how "sockpuppet" fairly applies, given the facts I've repeated more than once. (How about a reasonable answer to a reasonable question, in place of the "you're outnumbered" remark.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
What's more Todd, your "grossly misguided" is completely inappropriate and insulting, as my Qs here have been fair, honest, and in good faith. Perhaps you should dial your attacks and hostility down a bit. (Perhaps dial it down to zero, and try to help me here with a real answer.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, Todd. Daniel made a public user rename request. He corrected in 2 minutes an inadvertent use of his old username. That is the only basis (that single inadvertent use) that anyone, including you, has provided justifies "sockpuppet" label on his old account. His old account is his real life name. The facts show no attempt to conceal or deceive anyone. That meets neither the spirit nor the letter of WP:SOCKPUPPET. You keep arguing without arguments. What "several explanations" are you referring to? There has been only one, repeated by everyone (the single, inadvertent use of the old username, corrected by Daniel in 2 minutes). I've presented reasoned argument to you. You have presented only a wall of non-listening and non-responding. If you don't have anything substantive to say, they perhaps you shouldn't be responding. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I have just restored the change of Carbonaceous to a dab page. Don't agree with that change. Although it is not very well developed at all, it is a better target for the incoming links than carbon and I think they should also be restored. SpinningSpark 19:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Since carbonaceous is merely an adjective describing carbon content, I would prefer to see carbonaceous redirected to Carbon, with the two short sentences now in the former article being merged into the latter (preferably with the addition of some sources). bd2412T 20:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you have to look beyond what the article is now and what it could become. The part of speech is really a side issue; the page could easily be renamed to a noun such as carbonaceous material, or carbonaceous rock, or carbonaceous mineral or something. Carbon is about the element and is not an especially helpful link for the vast majority of the incoming links it has/used to have. SpinningSpark 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If the title to be developed is "carbonaceous something", then aren't we right back to the question of whether "carbonaceous" alone is ambiguous to whatever that something is, or to carbonaceous chondrite, carbonaceous film, carbonaceous soil, etc.? bd2412T 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article should not become a dicdef of carbonaceous anything. However, to my mind, there is a common enough thread between chondrites, hydrocarbon minerals (coal, oil, tar) and other mineralogical and geological subjects to be able to write a coherent article. SpinningSpark 23:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm researching in the area of cross border regulation of banks, and bankruptcy resolution (or other "prop up" techniques) for the large global banks (officially the Systemically Important Financial Institutions or SIFIs). Based on long tradition with some evolution the cross border regulation of banks has been via "memorandums of understanding" between country regulators and some attempt at harmonizing banking law (Basel I, II and III accords). Basel accords are voluntarily implemented and enacted into laws and regulations in each separate country. OK that was long winded, here is the question.
Were banking regulation to "go global" what legal models would it "go to school on"? As I understand it maritime law and perhaps airspace and outer space are subject to some types of international law? Are there any other international law areas that might be relevant as guiding models? What works? What hasn't?
Reminds me of the international standards game and ISO. Deadly slow and highly political...
Give me the scent to put me on the trail and this dog will hunt....Rick (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Rick. I very much doubt that there will be truly international regulation of banking laws in the foreseeable future, as this area is utterly occupied by treaty relations, and nations have many diverse and competing interests represented through those. Furthermore, the areas that you mentioned, maritime and airspace and outerspace, are also ultimately regulated by treaties, although these tend to be broad conventions signed on to by almost every country in the world. That said, however, banking is commerce, so any international regulation of banking would run along the lines of the World Trade Organization governance. bd2412T 02:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
The problem with having a disambiguation page at this title is a bit more profound then that, since virtually every title on the page is a partial title match. Also, capitalization is a poor distinguishing characteristic for a title that could be searched with or without it. It would be reasonable to move the page to Natural history museum and leave the capitalized version as a redirect to it, but capitalized or not, the phrase seems to me to describe a concept with a primary meaning as set forth in the material that I have added to the page. bd2412T 02:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, I would tend to agree about the issue with capitalization (despite Science Museum having the same problem), but I'm mostly being the messenger. I don't know if you saw the discussion at Talk:Natural History Museum, London#Requested move that led to the move, but some argued (and may continue to argue) that Natural History Museum should be about the museum in London -- they probably wouldn't even consider that it should be a generic article about natural history museums. And I imagine had certain admins come across the move request first, the article might have even remained that way. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
http://www.linkedin.com/company/rrsat/
The company would like to add a logo and some photos to it's wiki page. As you are the latest editor of the page, I thought I'd ask you first.
Please contact gili.k@rrsat.com for images.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdiCoh (talk • contribs)
Thanks, but I have no interest in this. My edit was to request the repair of an errant link to the disambiguation page AB. Please fix this if you can. Otherwise, please proceed with editing your page in accordance with WP:COI. Cheers! bd2412T 13:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing up country house for me. We had the issue of having articles on English country houses and Scottish country houses, but not having one on "just plain" country houses, so that country house had previously redirect to English country house, which was obviously incorrect. There was a discussion on the English country house talk page, and a disambiguation page was apparently the most easy solution, because no one wanted to return English country house back to Country house, where it had been to start with. Thanks again, though, for sorting it. RGloucester (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you contributed to Template: OW a long time ago and I had a question about its use. According to WP: BLANKING users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page as I know, but once they do and the template is added are they allowed to then remove the template, or are they required to leave it there if they choose to remove the warnings, which is actually resulting in a user not being blocked. STATicmessage me! 05:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I created this template for old dynamic/public IP talk pages, where those who have edited the page in the past are unlikely to be looking at it again. bd2412T 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh its seemed to be a proper template to have on a user's talk page when they constantly remove warnings so Administrators reviewing the case at WP:AIV know that there are warnings in the talk page (in this case over 5 in less than a month). I mean receiving two final warnings within a day for personal attacks and not being blocked is pretty ridiculous. STATicmessage me! 15:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If you'd checked the disambig page before deleting it, you'd see most of the incoming links where from the template footer, and virtually none of them where from articles. Most of the incoming links were to the cricketer, but I guess you know best. Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a clear WP:TWODABS situation, for which a primary topic may be discernible. Therefore, I think I am correct in saying that we should have a discussion of such moves before implementing them. bd2412T 12:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
A nomination is taking place as to whether Ari Wolfe should be deleted or not. The discussion is held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Wolfe and everyone is welcome to join in on the discussion. However do not remove the AfD notice on top. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Possible hoax; unsourced BLP at best, none of the sources mention this person. Juan Ochoa Vasquez is not the same as Juan Vasquez, and even if the article referred to the former, it would still fail WP:GNG.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Speedied. This was created as an article on U.S. Tax Court judge Juan F. Vasquez. At some point an anon came by and changed it into an article on a hoax drug lord. Good catch. bd2412T 11:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It was actually reported to WP:BLP/N so it was noticed by someone else. In any case, glad you could fix it, and sorry for all the notice spam :\ §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the notice, without which I would not have know that there was a problem that needed fixing. Cheers! bd2412T 16:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I notice that early on in the history of the article, you "imported" information from the GSA site. I understand that the information in the GSA article is in the public domain... but I don't believe that means it can be copied into a Wikipedia article without attriubtion:
Even when material is not covered by copyright, it is still important to state its origin, including its authors or creators. Failure to include the origin of a work is misleading and also makes it more difficult for readers and editors to refer to the material's source. It may also violate the terms of the GFDL.
Thanks, but I'm not clear that this suffices. The attribution notice you've given suggests the article "incorporates" information form a public domain source... when in fact it replicates public domain information. Per Wikipedia:Plagiarism, the "Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more. Naming the author in the text allows the reader to see which words rely heavily on someone else, without having to search in the footnote"' or in this case, search the article for attribution. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As an intellectual property attorney, I can't see any legally significant difference between "incorporates" and "replicates" as used here. Since the lede and infobox are not from the GSA, it would be inaccurate to imply that there is nothing original to Wikipedia in this article. I contacted the GSA when I was preparing to upload all of their courthouse descriptions and informed them of my intended use, and how I planned to attribute the content, and they were fine with it. I have since created dozens, if not hundreds, of these articles in collaboration with hundreds of editors, and this is the first time I have heard any suggestion that the attribution provided is insufficient. On a side note, the GSA itself does not identify the actual authors of any of its articles, so there is no person to name. bd2412T 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Kelapstick recently fully protected this article due to a content dispute. The crux of the matter was an editor who kept expanding the plot well beyond the limits defined by WP:FILMPLOT, would not explain his actions, and would not discuss the matter on the talk page. However, the page is now fully protected with the inordinately long and terribly written plot summary in place. It needs to be reverted to the last stable version before the edit war. Kelapstick is on vacation, so I cannot ask him to do it. Would you mind taking a look? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Although you can do this, please be aware that it will not change the list of 1,000 pages used for the challenge on the Toolserver page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of that. However, since Siam was already resolved, there would be no points to be gained from it anyway. I knocked out Real World right away so no one would be misled into thinking it was worth any points either. bd2412T 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
