Don't call names, you mewling plume-plucked death-token!
You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you spleeny ill-breeding barnacle.
Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 22:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC).
I am going to take your mother out for a lovely seafood dinner and then never call her again! bd2412T 22:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Call that dispute resolution? Bishonen | talk 23:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC).
Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind:
I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek").
It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page.
Thanks for closing Talk:Confederate_Arizona#Requested_move. I really like the way you consulted the early participants about the late turn in the consensus-finding process, and waited 24 hours to allow objections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and cheers! bd2412T 01:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out yesterday. I had six articles - including the two I mentioned yesterday - that I found had been deleted at AFD, but all have coverage in Shannon Appelcline's Designers & Dragons. I would like to get all of them ultimately restored to article space, so I need at minimum one more good source - can you help me look for them? The ones in question are Draft:Adam Jury, Draft:Chris Seeman, Draft:Paul Hume (game designer), and Draft:S. John Ross (writer). Any help you can give there is appreciated! BOZ (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, if you can help out at all on any of those, it would be a huge step in the right direction for me. :) BOZ (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have it on my list of things to do, but there is no deadline. I have quite a few drafts in the queue that are much older. bd2412T 17:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
You got it! Cheers. :) BOZ (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
After successful Requested Moves, Tom Braunlich and Wilf K. Backhaus are articles once more. :) I will note that, in both cases, the number of unanimous supports to restore the articles were the exact same number of votes to delete them at AFD in the first place. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on this, as it doesn't seem as if the editor in question is taking the advice he's been receiving. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit handicapped in that there are certain articles I would prefer to avoid perusing from a shared computer. I would therefore suggest leaving a note on the page of the appropriate WikiProject. Let them know that this editor has already been blocked once for edit warring, after his edits were reverted by three different editors. Cheers! bd2412T 21:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've posted a neutral pointer on the relevant WikiProject. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Do I really have to put up with this guy claiming that I "run sockpuppets", when his "evidence" is my unannounced and unlinked change of name in 2009 which resulted in a brief block for sockpuppetry three years ago, before a community discussion allowed me to continue editing (all of which is explained here, linked from my user page as "My History"), and the fact that I changed my sig recently from "Beyond My Ken" to "BMK, Grouchy Realist". He just doesn't seem to want to focus on content, and his attacks are becoming more and more personal. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. I've unwatched the page and I'm moving out of firing range. Thanks for your help. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I probably clicked the "rollback" button by accident while moving my screen with the watchlist up. bd2412T 13:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've done that before... particularly when viewing in the stock browser on an Android mobile phone, for some reason the page jumps around several times when loading and one fat thumb hitting a link a fraction too late can instead land squarely on some completely different rollback button. — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't even realized that anything had happened at all until I got this notice! bd2412T 14:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Some people are able to remove the rollback links from their Watchlist by adding the following line to their vector.css file:
An example is in User:EdJohnston/vector.css. In practice doing rollback from your watchlist may not be desirable anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep the ability - it's more of an advantage than a disadvantage. bd2412T 18:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for taking care of this. I normally make an effort to clean up the incoming links myself, but in this case it totally slipped my mind. I didn't mean to make you (or anyone else) clean up my messes, but appreciate your help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2014; 21:45 (UTC)
As these things go, it was a relatively easy one. Cheers to you! bd2412T 21:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw your edit at James Kirk (disambiguation).
In the various edit guides I have seen, I have not seen any "strictly forbidden" language used, for disambiguation pages or otherwise.
Could you please provide me with proof of your claim or revert your change?
(cur | prev) 13:37, January 10, 2014 BD2412 (talk | contribs) . . (876 bytes) (-115) . . (external links are strictly forbidden on disambiguation pages; the link should be in the appropriate article) (undo | thank) LP-mn (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
I hope to see you there!
(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)
Helo BD2412. An editor had swapped the art historian with the programmer, arguing that the historian was the more famous. You reverted this. Since then, User:Coldcreation opened a RM discussion but so far he is the only participant. That RM is now in the backlog ready to be closed. If I turn out to be the closer of the discussion, I'd probably make the historian be the primary meaning, based on volume of scholarly work. Also he was the director of the Fogg Museum at Harvard. Are you thinking of posting anything to the move discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The reversion was of the creation of a WP:TWODABS disambiguation page at the title, which broke a large number of existing links. bd2412T 12:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that most of the incoming links to Daniel Robbins are from Template:Linux, which is heavily used (250-500 transclusions). His name is in there as the creator of one of the distributions (Gentoo Linux). In principle, you'd think the art scholar would be more notable but the programmer gets more attention here on Wikipedia. Now rethinking. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi BD2412 -- not sure if this is the right way to contact you, but I have fixed the issue with the IBM Rational Focal Point page being an orphan by creating links on pages of two tools that link to it -- so far -- there are many others -- but I have created links to it on System Architect and IBM Rational Team Concert. Sorry if this is the incorrect way to get this info to you. Please delete this note if it is the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louv (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Taken care of, cheers! bd2412T 20:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Devil's Due links. I don't make mass-edits often, but perhaps it is time to set up and use WP:AWB for these rare occasions. Appreciate it! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I highly recommend it. Cheers! bd2412T 20:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EUTooManyStars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Cube00 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the move discussion at Talk:AP Spanish. The result is to delete the existing DAB as unnecessary disambiguation. However, the language exam page has an existing talk page which can't be dispensed with, and the move discussion is itself on the talk page of the old DAB. I have kept Talk:AP Spanish Language (the old language talk page) and Talk:AP Spanish. One option is to archive Talk:AP Spanish Language by moving and let Talk:AP Spanish become the regular talk page. How does that sound? EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The pages could be merged, but that might engender confusion. I agree with moving Talk:AP Spanish Language to something like Talk:AP Spanish/Archive 1, since (other than recent bot-made move notices), the discussions on that page are very old. Cheers! bd2412T 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on my talk page refreshing my memory about edit-warring. I notice that you did not warn the other party PamD - was that deliberate or inadvertent? cheers Paul venter (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
That was deliberate. Your initial bold edit was proper; PamD's initial revert was proper; undoing the reversion without discussion was improper, and required a response. bd2412T 23:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
PamD's initial revert may have been proper, but it was followed by 2 more reverts on the 24th - were they also proper and not falling within the meaning of edit warring? I think if one uses a system one should try to be even-handed.....Paul venter (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that even-handedness requires ignoring clearly differing degrees of impropriety. bd2412T 15:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Really? This is from your post on my page
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I do not see your "clearly differing degrees of impropriety" but rather a clear case of prejudice. Paul venter (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I have explained above that your first move was proper, that PamD's first revert was proper, and that your following move was improper. You appear to have accepted that this was a correct judgment, so no further examination of the question is required. Cheers! bd2412T 16:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what gives you the impression that I have accepted your action as the "correct judgement"!!?? You obviously are not giving my notes close attention. I ask again "Why do you regard PamD's reverts after my 'improper' revert as being acceptable? Paul venter (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me ask you plainly, then. Do you agree that it was wrong for you to revert PamD? bd2412T 19:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
No! I do not think it was wrong. Her note read "revert to long-established redirect, instead of unsourced dicdef" As I pointed out to her a 'long-established redirect' was of itself not a compelling reason for her to revert. As regards 'unsourced dicdef', I provided sources with my next edit. Paul venter (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You then created a page tagged as a disambiguation page, but which violates numerous aspects of MOS:DAB, including the express prohibition on external links appearing on disambiguation pages, and failing to actually disambiguate between ambiguously titled entries in the encyclopedia. Your actions in this regard were ultimately reverted by another administrator. Please do not create disambiguation pages unless and until there are multiple articles in Wikipedia that share an ambiguous title, or at least mention the topics by the name or term proposed to be ambiguous. bd2412T 13:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Your gratuitous lecture is noted, but you have consistently failed to explain your bias in issuing edit-warring tags. Paul venter (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought I had explained things, but to be clear, yours was the first improper act, and the impropriety of your conduct grew worse with each successive edit. No other editor in this dispute was seeking to impose a page containing materials prohibited by MOS:DAB (which I encourage you to review if you intend to continue editing disambiguation pages), which any editor could and should therefore have immediately removed from the page. bd2412T 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't remember why I'm a talk page stalker of BD2412...but I am. Get over it Paul. You made a bad edit and then edit warred over it. Did someone else edit war? Yes....but they were right. Get over it. I make mistakes here, and I am happy when people correct me. I want the wiki to be accurate. --Onorem (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The edit-warring tag is intended for editors who are edit-warring - it doesn't ask who was right and who was wrong. Read this post with more care so that you can understand my concern, instead of rushing off half-cocked. Paul venter (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting: I've just seen all the above for the first time, as Paul's talkpage is on my watchlist. I'd actually disagree with your (BD2412)'s statement above that "[Paul's] initial bold edit was proper": he over-wrote an existing redirect without supplying any replacement (such as a hatnote) for the reader looking for the Egyptian name. That was improper, and the reason that having initially PRODded the unsourced dicdef I instead reverted to the pre-existing redirect. PamD 12:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Proper in the sense that it wasn't straight-up vandalism. It could, in theory, have been a first step towards building a sourced and cited article on the topic. It turns out that it wasn't, but the edit by itself was merely poor editorial judgment, as opposed to something sinister. In any case, I do not think that there is any value to be gained by continuing this discussion. If anyone has anything further to say, please take it to WP:ANI. Cheers! bd2412T 13:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit-warring is edit-warring, and if you're going to slap edit-warring tags on editors, then do so on ALL the parties involved - don't try to prejudge the situation by deciding who was right or wrong, or what was proper and improper - in this case your judgement was poor. Paul venter (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello BD2412. This RM may be ready to close, and I'm scoping out the borderline votes. Are you supporting or just not opposing? What you wrote in the discussion was 'opposition withdrawn'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
At this point, I am neutral on the question. bd2412T 03:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I closed this move discussion as Moved. Since there are just two Daniel Robbins articles, do we use hatnotes instead of a DAB? If so, to which article should the Daniel Robbins redirect go? The move discussion did not conclude that either one was the primary topic. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
A WP:TWODABS page is appropriate if there is no discernible primary topic; that seems to be the case here, so Daniel Robbins should become a disambiguation page. bd2412T 15:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. At Talk:Leyte_(island)#Requested_move you said "no disambiguation needed, as the main topics are related". However, there are several topics (pages), all related true, but the dab page serves as the easiest method to re-navigate to the desired Leyte page. So a disambiguation page is desired, for navigation purposes, even though this is not technically disambiguation? Am I confusing terminology here? Also, I think you like to sometimes promote "broad-concept articles" in favor of DAB pages. When you do, do you usually mean that the broad-concept article replaces the DAB page, in cases like Leyte where all topics are related? I understand the text and examples at the guideline, but I am not sure if the concept extends to cases like Leyte, where it is not really that the "concept" is broad, but there are multiple pages all closely associated with the same short title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to the continued existence of Leyte (disambiguation), since the page now includes topics beyond just the province and its environs. If there were nothing but subdivisions and the encompassing island, I would say that those can be discussed in a section of the article itself. Cheers! bd2412T 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not normally one to question closes in move requests, but I'm quite baffled by your close at Talk:Gopher. As far as I can see there has not been one shred of evidence provided by any of the "support" votes that the animal article is a primary topic over the protocol, as per our policies and guidelines. The only actual numerical data provided was the page view stats, which clearly leaned in the opposite direction, while the only vaguely satisfactory explanation for why there might be primacy was the comment about long term notability; even that was not backed up by a single piece of evidence. Furthermore, I made a comment towards the bottom regarding the fact that effectively the animal is a pocket gopher not just a plain gopher, so really there's not even much of a disambiguation issue, but nobody answered that point at all. I know I voted to oppose, so perhaps I'm biased, but I don't see how you can have found a consensus to move here. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Zarcadia pretty much sums it up. This is the apple situation - the animal that has existed in the natural world for millions of years and been part of the human experience for thousands is inherently primary over transitory meanings that have existed for a few decades and will likely be gone within a few more. bd2412T 01:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OK then. I'm not sure a gopher can quite be compared in notability to an apple, but there are more important things to worry about in life so I'm happy to let this one rest! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Gopher (protocol) can be compared in notability to Apple Inc., either. Things are relative. However, I didn't make that judgment in closing the RM, I merely determined that the consensus to move was reasonable in light of applicable policy. bd2412T 22:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
BD2412,
I beleive you may have edited my page on Ambassador Stuart Holliday and rejected it because of a copyright issue; however, the websites sited in fact took their information on the ambassador from the Meridian International Center's page on him (http://www.meridian.org/meridian/our-leadership/item/69-stuart-holliday) which was written by us and owned by us. I do not know how to prove this specifcally, just that we wrote the original information and therefore have the right to put it on the wikipedia page about him. Wondering if you might be able to help me or give me an avenue to pusue that would result in the publication of the article on the ambassador.
thanks so much,
Roberly2 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)roberly2
I only edited the disambiguation links. Someone else raised a copyright issue with the page. Cheers! bd2412T 15:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know what you think of this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the previous content of Yugoslavia in World War II, it is indeed highly repetitive of Yugoslav Front. There is no need for both to exist for the information to be conveyed. bd2412T 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my edit on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/February 2014. Can you tell me what I was doing wrong? I thought items were supposed to be moved to the end of the "Done" section when they're finished, and unless I'm mistaken, the only links left from the main namespace to Phoenix are intended to link to the disambiguation page. Please let me know what I should do differently. Thank you. Mr. Granger (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have explained. Phoenix was already in the "finished" section. You moved it from the middle of that section to the end, and I didn't want anyone to change the count on account of that. Cheers! bd2412T 22:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Francis Albarède. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?
Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.
If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.
Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. As a matter of courtesy, because you created the redirect for Send Me On My Way, I am letting you know I have written an article over the top of it.--Launchballer 15:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! bd2412T 15:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the note about dispute resolution at the top of the page, I am hereby offering to start a dispute with you, if you like, and you can take me to dispute resolution. Shall I call you some names, or send an abusive sock to visit? Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC).
Let the abuse begin. bd2412T 22:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. I've put an abusive template with lots of insults at the top of the page (it needs to be at the top for the "receive fresh insults" functionality to work right). I look forward to hearing from your solicitor a mediator. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC).
Can you relist the discussion? You already voted, and the voting results were mixed, yet you closed it as "not moved"? --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Mixed results add up to a lack of consensus. I don't think that relisting would generate any change in the outcome, as the discussion was already open for well over a month before I closed it. bd2412T 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've had to fix most of your recent dabs of hydraulic transmission. You had altered most to Hydraulic drive system, but in railway applications, such systems are almost never used - except on the lightest of vehicles. On railways, the term "hydraulic transmission" refers to something completely different - a system of shafting including one or more torque converters. A better link would have been Hydrokinetic transmission. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It is always useful when editors with specialized knowledge help out with disambiguation. Cheers! bd2412T 01:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
While there's nothing the matter with that post, just thought I should say that the "thank" was unintended! In mobile wiki the "thank" button is much too large and too near the "back" on my phone. PamD 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I am crushed! bd2412T 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I could do the articles which obviously need disambiguation (some already have redlinks on some dab pages as I thought theyd'd be done by now or shortly.) That process could be basically done by end of next week barring interruptions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it would be great if you could do that after the 1st of March, so those pages don't show up in the March disambiguation contest, since the fixes are usually taken care of in the templates. bd2412T 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll do them the other way around... :) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - cheers! bd2412T 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a possibility. I was however envisioning that perhaps there could be much more information (I just started the US and Canada articles today) on the different diplomas offered regionally, possibly on state and federal standards and regulations governing each, and son on, which could merit two separate articles. --Shruti14talk • sign 03:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there will be no red stars on the March Disambiguation pages with links list, and it's largely your fault! :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there will be some for April. Ideally there won't but we are unlikely to repeat this month's sweep with any degree of regularity (I, for one, am exhausted). However, I do note that it will be at least July before we get to see any spinning stars. bd2412T 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's possible that some page that was removed from the list earlier this month gets 11 new links to it added before tonight. But, apart from that, no one gets to see the results of my labors! [sniffle] --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
