User talk:BD2412

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bouncywikilogo.gif

Status: Taking a Wikibreak indefinitely. bd2412 T (e)

Archives
By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):
Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th
Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 1st-2d-3d-4th-5th-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th-11th-12th-13th


Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412

March 2014[edit]

Super Disambiguator's Barnstar.png The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame.
This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 3837 links in the challenge of February 2014. Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! bd2412 T 00:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DC Meetups in March[edit]

Happy March!

Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather.

Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up:

  • Evening WikiSalon on Wednesday, March 12 from 7 PM – 9 PM. Meet up with Wikipedians for coffee at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle! If you cannot make it in the evening, join us at our...
  • March Meetup on Sunday, March 23 from 3 PM – 6 PM. Our monthly weekend meetup, same place as last month. Meet really cool and interesting people!
  • Women in the Arts 2014 meetup and edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 30 from 10 AM – 5 PM. Our second annual Women in the Arts edit-a-thon, held at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free lunch will be served!

We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

Harej (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template[edit]

Are you serious. Template the regulars. Done close a move discussion thats clearly valid nor should you ignore the evidence presented. Disgracefully poor.Blethering Scot 17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me what was controversial about the move that required a RM. The answer is nothing, the boot is not the primary topic, as move has been in place for a period of time and disam it should of been discussed not moved back.Blethering Scot 17:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The template is purely informative, not a "you've been warned" act, and reverting bold moves for discussion is common and accepted practice, per WP:BRD. If you believe your actions to be correct, then there is no need to get worked up about it. Just follow the normal procedures, and if your beliefs about primary usage and ambiguity are correct, the matter will be resolved within a few weeks, at most. bd2412 T 17:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am worked up and i believe your actions were by no means correct, in fact i believe them to be extremely suboptimal. The move request had been started and replies to it had been achieved. There wasn't a cat in hells chance of the primary being restored. You should have let the move request continue and it would either of failed or Kinky boots (musical) moved to the primary. Thought of you as a good editor, however know i believe your judgement here has been poor. Move request should of been let continue, in fact it will continue as it needs to remain open.Blethering Scot 17:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Normal procedures only require a move request if its controversial, evidence is clear this want in anyway that. BRD didn't and shouldn't of applied and an editor had started a discussion and it should of continued, especially given evidence had been presented. Reverting other editors should only be done when clearly justified and given the last part of the that policy was underway the reverting wasn't and isn't justifiable.Blethering Scot 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Try not to get so upset over getting reverted. Calm discussion will yield the correct result. With respect to my specific actions here, they are based on my experience in dealing with a large number of situations exactly like these. The reason the move request should not have been allowed to continue is that now readers will be confused over whether supporting the request would result in the article being moved or staying where it was. What is framed as a move request now contains an argument for retaining the current title. Your own comment now says "oppose", when opposition to a move would retain the status quo. This is exactly the sort of conduct that lead to the situation with the Chelsea Manning move discussion. The appropriate thing to do is to initiate a new move discussion, clearly setting forth the reasons why you believe "Kinky boots" should be moved to "Kinky boots (boot)". As a matter of common sense, you are always better off going through a move request than moving a page unilaterally, unless the move is to correct a typo in the title or the like. bd2412 T 18:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No the move was not controversial, if evidence is clear then i will continue to move the page, common sense is clear and your not on the side of common sense as your actions clearly show. Common sense would of allowed discussion to take place. You cannot come up with one good reason why BRD applies, it doesn't as Discussion was under way and evidence presented. The discussion caused no harm to the encyclopaedia, there were no disam links at all, i had fixed them and now there are bloody links to fix. Short term your move causes more harm that the discussions did not. Well I'm not going to fix any more disambiguation links in future as idiotic behaviour like yours shows me why its not with whilst doing. Honestly that was a stupid and utterly idiotic move. The original move request more than handled the situation, but thanks to you having 0 common sense we start again.Blethering Scot 18:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can feel that the move was not controversial when another editor objected to it and initiated a process to reverse it. That is the very definition of controversy. In time, perhaps when you reach my level of contribution to this project, I believe that you will see that my action here was correct. I am sorry that this process has distressed you. bd2412 T 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Your an absolute piss taker and I won't be patronised by someone like you. I'm quite happy with my 37 thousand edits, thank you very much.. You may have experience but no common sense, reverting in the middle of a discussion does not help anyone, BR should not be done after D and there was no imminent danger to the encyclopedia that could needed averted by reverting. In fact that shows you have no common sense because any one with it would have let the discussion continue. If I see my self ever becoming like you as you said I will shoot myself. Blethering Scot 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • BletheringScot, someone clearly objected to the move, and therefore I don't see why you've gotten quite this worked up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Lukeno94:They did with a reason akin to its been like this since 2005 i want it back, there wasn't one but of evidence provided as to why. Im not even angry at that its understandable and the discussion could handle What I'm very angry at is an admin reverting and closing a discussion that was taking place. There is no excuse or common sense for enacting a revert citing BRD when a discussion is taking place. That discussion was perfectly capable of handling the situation, there was no imminent issue that needed correcting that would justify a revert when a discussion was taking place and the editor who objected could of revetted but choose to discuss instead which is a far better way of handling. On top of that he closed down the discussion when evidence already provided that clearly showed a page with just 148 views wasn't the primary target. Discussion is important and closing one which was already underway and reverting is not excusable. He's also left links pointing to wrong pages as a result that id spent time fixing, this caused more harm doing something than not.Blethering Scot 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether the objection is 100% grounded in policy or not; the move was controversial, therefore the reversion was correct. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
@Lukeno94: No the reversion was 100% incorrect citing BRD, there was no BRD there was Discuss, revert then close discussion. The discussion wasn't aloud to continue, despite being started and replied to. He is miss using a policy.Blethering Scot 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In addition closing down the discussion was 100% disrespectful to the proposer, who chose to start the discussion rather than revert and to me the person who replied to it. There was little reason to revert when discussing already and even less need to close the discussion down completely. If he was interested in a discussion he would of taken part in it rather than doing all that and then templating a regular.Blethering Scot 19:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The proposer couldn't have reverted, since a page move followed by the addition of new text at the original title can only be reverted by an administrator. bd2412 T 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah so what your saying was you acted independently, without request in your capacity as an admin, whilst misquoting a policy.Blethering Scot 19:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Now you have caught my attention even more. BRD was clearly not followed. You reverted and closed a discussion and reverted a move whilst the discussion was taking place to handle it. Stinks of miss use of tools, especially when you weren't following what you quoted.Blethering Scot 19:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If you believe that any of my actions were incorrect, I am sure you are familiar with the processes for addressing that. bd2412 T 19:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yet you cannot justify, nor have even attempted to justify reverting and closing a discussion, citing BRD when that isn't what you carried out. You've admitted you acted as an admin rather than as an editor, so you are expected to justify that based on the policy you quoted when making that edit. The hard facts are the policy doesn't cover closing a discussion taking place, reverting then closing that discussion down. There is clearly no BRD being followed, you closed rather than started a discussion and you reverted after the discussion was taking place. There was no immediate threat that justified a reversion taking aside that policy.Blethering Scot 19:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion was a proposal to carry out the reversion; since it was clear that the proper course of action was to revert the undiscussed move (as the proposal clearly showed it to be controversial), there was no point in continuing to discuss a proposal to revert the move. As a matter of procedure this is no different than the speedy deletion of an obvious test page leading to the speedy closure of an AfD. bd2412 T 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The proposal did not clearly show it was controversial, it showed someone was objecting but failed to address a reason why. There was a comment and evidence provided in reply that clearly laid out why, and the discussion was underway. If no reply had been made then thats fine but to ignore the discussion isn't, once replies have taken place then you cannot seriously without disguising the edit cite BRD. There wasn't anything there what so ever that justified an Admin action taking place. Now if you hadn't cited BRD then your reply holds weight, but you cited that policy which clearly doesn't cover what you did, if the discussion was under way then there was no need to revert and close the discussion, as you were fully aware in replies that a discussion had to take place either way. Its the closing of the discussion altogether that was the most despicable, you were stopping a justified discussion. You as an editor was bad enough, but as an admin its unacceptable.Blethering Scot 20:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
By that reasoning, any editor could move any article they want to any title they want, claim that they believe the move to be noncontroversial even if it is thereafter objected to, and nothing could be done about it because moving the article back would require admin action. bd2412 T 20:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No that is not the case at all. If they had asked for admin assistance in the revert, plenty of them to ask and plenty of venues then of course BRD is exactly the same. If they start a discussion (not a request) and people reply and discuss further thats no longer a BRD thats a discussion. Once the discussion has started you cannot cite BRD reasonably. Because there is no longer bold revert, you weren't bold you closed a discussion that was perfectly able to deal with the problem at hand without an Admin intervention. He didn't make a request for admin assistance in any way, he asked for an editorial discussion. Your action was independent not a request. You cant cite BRD once a discussion is properly underway that not BRD. My main issue here is an admin improperly citing a policy, whilst doing an admin action.Blethering Scot 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaucho pants listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaucho pants. Since you had some involvement with the Gaucho pants redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied, cheers! bd2412 T 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move of Irish parliament (disambiguation) to Irish parliament[edit]

You commented in this discussion but didn't vote. So, can I ask you if you understand the proposal? I'm thinking of closing this. As I see it now, it's a fairly innocuous proposal. And I don't see why it would require a lot of redirects to be fixed. Normally there would not (I assume) be very many links to a DAB page such as Irish parliament (disambiguation). If I'm wrong please let me know. It is puzzling that there is a redirect Irish parliament which goes to the pre-1801 parliament, while Irish parliament (disambiguation) is admitted to be ambiguous. I guess it's not up to me to make this arrangement sound logical. Thanks,

Replied, cheers! bd2412 T 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mew Gull[edit]

Please see the message before yours on my talk page. It's been through Requested moves, and in the absence of a clear consensus, I was asked to move it (over a redirect, so it needed an admin) to IOC name, the default authority for the bird project in the absence of a consensus to do otherwise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not how "consensus" works. See Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus:

In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

This article has been at the title, Common Gull, for eleven years. In order to move it from this title to another title, consensus must be established in favor of the move, or else the long-standing article title, in this case Common Gull, is kept. In this case there was a discussion proposing to move it for exactly the reasons that you were requested to move it, and that discussion resulted in no consensus. bd2412 T 16:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the old name, Mew is too American for my Brit tastes, but I voted to move in order to further the aim to have a consistent naming system over all the bird project, except for articles where there is a clear consensus not to do so. As an example of the advantages, a long running dispute over Great Northern Diver (BE and the original title) and Common Loon (AE) was resolved by adopting IOC's Great Northern Loon. It's a pity that what appears to be dogmatic rule following is likely to make such positive outcomes more difficult, but there we are. And please, please, please don't move the loon back to GND, or all hell will break loose ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no preference with respect to the title (although, as an American, I can honestly say that I've heard of the name, "Common Gull" and have not heard the name "Mew Gull" before this discussion), but the request was made to move this page, the discussion was properly closed by User:BrownHairedGirl as "no consensus". We don't move articles from long-established titles without consensus to do so, particularly after a discussion has failed to yield precisely that consensus. My advice would be to wait a few weeks, then initiate a new move request and engage in appropriate notification of participants and relevant WikiProjects in order to gain a wider community response. bd2412 T 18:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand the argument over long-established titles, but this particular species should have been changed long ago. The North American name (Mew Gull) prevails on the IOC website and throughout Canada and the United States (check any North American birdbook). Wikiproject Birds uses the IOC names for its naming convention unless there is a clear consensus NOT to use it. If we continue to use Common Gull for this species, it would fly in the face of the compromises the IOC (and the Wikiproject) have made to accommodate differing European and North American names for the same species (see Black-necked vs Horned Grebe, Hen Harrier vs Marsh Hawk, Common vs European Starling, Little Auk vs Dovekie, Grey vs Black-bellied Plover on the European side, and Red vs Grey Phalarope, Thick-billed Murre vs Brünnich's Guillemot, Common Murre vs Common Auk, Parasitic Jaeger vs Parasitic Skua, Common Merganser vs Goosander on the North American side, etc. The Common Gull would be the only species we use the other continents name for instead of using the name the IOC uses from the appropriate continent....... I strongly feel for this reason the name should be changed to Mew Gull.......My guess is the results will be the same if another move request is initiated. It's too bad the author is too Eurocentric....... Pvmoutside (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Per my suggestion to Jimfbleak, broader notification to relevant projects is likely to yield broader participation, and likely a different result if a better case is made. So far as I can tell, the only argument put forward in favor of this move was that it is what the IOC uses. None of the sort of evidence that you suggest, (e.g., "check any North American birdbook") was presented. bd2412 T 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The compromise argument was already presented. The argument of looking at any North American birdbook should be self evident.....Bottom line, one can find any convention on Wikipedia to back up a claim to keep a name an administrator chooses to follow. I choose not to participate any longer until the site decides on being less Eurocentric.....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I have not made clear how much I don't care which convention is followed. My only concern is that editors who fail to achieve consensus for a proposal do not then choose to ignore the outcome of the discussion and implement their preference despite the absence of the necessary consensus. bd2412 T 03:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
perhaps no consensus will be reached because too many people have left Wikipedia upset about the overly bureaucratic methods as I am about to do........it's not about my preference, it's about being consistent......Pvmoutside (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't leave over this. If you don't like the outcome, work to change the outcome; if you don't like the process, work to change the process. Please keep in mind that from the point of view of an uninvolved reviewer, the discussion here did not come across as a particularly serious or well-presented effort to persuade editors of the correctness of the proposed outcome. bd2412 T 04:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Not worth the fight......other species have been changed after years of stability...i'm done!.....Pvmoutside (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to walk, but I'm sorry to see Pvmoutside go. That user has taken on the thankless and tedious task of rationalising the bird names on Wikipedia as a coherent global list. I know that you can justify what you have done, but the fact remains that you have unilaterally overturn the project's policy. You have argued that there should be discussion, but I suspect that without Pvmoutside that's dead in the water. A couple of Australian editors are currently trying to reverse an AGREED move that moved a local species name to IOC to make it consistent with the other 50 species in the genus. I'm afraid that sort of dispute, along with those we have listed above, will become more common if dogma overrides common sense. Life's too short to lose sleep about this though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think that my actions were at all improper or incorrect, please request a review at Wikipedia:Move review. I find it difficult to believe that this is "the project's policy" if only a small handful of editors could be mustered to support the move itself when proposed. bd2412 T 12:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
There are a few recent comments on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Page move discussion for Common Gull. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Common Gull[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Common Gull. 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  • User:BrownHairedGirl closed the discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That is correct. The discussion was closed as "no consensus" for the move; the article was then moved despite this close, and I reverted that move. bd2412 T 14:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In case User BrownHairedGirl is not aware of the discussion about the name of this page, I have left a message on her talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I was going to do just that, but saw that you had already done so. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of WIkiProject Birds adopting a set of internationally-recognized names based on compromise, when those standards are not applied uniformly? This is ridiculous. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems unfortunate that, in light of that adoption, so few people participated in a discussion to move an article in conformance with it. It is the responsibility of the editors proposing a page move to convince the community to form a consensus supporting the proposed new title. bd2412 T 18:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Other bird moves[edit]

Can I ask if it's your intention to move the other pages identified by Pymoutside on the Bird Project page back to their original, British English, names? It's clear from your comments that you do not accept the Project's attempt to adopt international standardised names as valid, so I think it's only fair to indicate if you intend to mass revert. And there are a few hundred more where we have changed the names (without move review) less conspicuously, either because the species are little-known in the west, or the changes are smaller (eg removing hyphens where IOC has done so). It's a near certainty that for most of these, people won't bother with hundreds of formal move requests, so we are back to pick a name, any name. Sigh... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting moves that were made boldly and without objection, or that were made following consensus in a move request. The only problem here is that this move was proposed, other editors objected to it, and their objections were ignored. It is unfortunate that editors who are so strenuously contesting the result of the discussion did not put such effort into engaging the participants who objected to the move during the discussion. bd2412 T 12:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NFCC[edit]

This is a completely separate issue from the trademark issue, but per WP:NFCC, non-free images cannot be used at all on talk pages. Links are fine, but they can't be displayed. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that had not occurred to me. bd2412 T 17:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

500,000 ClickUser Verified as 497746[edit]

Re:Key request

Depending which numbers you follow, sometime in the past week or so I became the tenth Wikipedian to pass 500,000 edits. I believe I am entitled to some kind of key or something. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:HOLD YOUR HORSES, my ultra-super-hyper-intergalactic-popup thingy says "User:BD2412, sysop, 497746 edits". You need to make a further 2,254 edits, preferably null ones, but as a self-anointed "Independent Wikipedia Investigator" I have looked into the future and ascertained that you will indeed make such edits. Therefore, I invoke my power as a Guardian of the Articles, and present you with:
this KEY Key in moscow.jpg
... sorry that's the wrong key ... errmmm you can have:
this Key.png Key to Jimbo's Secret Tropical Hideaway
You and a friend can hang out there all week and enjoy raucous debates and mindless skullduggery with Jimbo's regular stalkers. Just remember to return the key to Jimbo's back pocket without him noticing. Regards and "congratulations/commiserations" (please delete whichever doesn't apply to you). Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked it up in Wikipedia, which says that I'm over 502,000. Since I consider Wikipedia to be a highly reliable source, I am going with that number, but thanks! bd2412 T 14:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Have a bunch of keys. Allen keys.jpg Congratulations. SchreiberBike talk 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's another key for you VanIsaacWScont 09:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Key delete.jpg

Histmerge[edit]

Hey BD—per my old RM thread, would you be able to histmerge User:Czar/drafts/Threes (video game) into Threes!? I am watching this page for the near future—no need to whisperback czar  02:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just the history, not the content? Or both? bd2412 T 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both—sorry. If you overwrite the old stuff, I'll do the cleanup czar  03:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, cheers! bd2412 T 03:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Not sure if you're around, but if you are, I could use some help with a histmerge from User:Czar/drafts/GTAO to Grand Theft Auto Online. czar  23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Minette (ore) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought that this had been disposed of long ago. bd2412 T 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dabs where the primary topic functions as dabconcept[edit]

What's the protocol for pages like Quadrophenia (disambiguation)? All of the uses are derived from, and linked from the article on, the primary topic, Quadrophenia (except Tommy and Quadrophenia Live, which is a WP:PTM). It wouldn't make sense to have a dabconcept or "franchise" article when the main article does that work anyway. So do you think the dab is useful? --BDD (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

All notable works derived from Quadrophenia either are or should be discussed in that article, rendering a disambiguation page redundant. However, so long as it is at the "Foo (disambiguation)" title, I consider it harmless. bd2412 T 19:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Absent is the Quadrophenia (and more) tour. Which was a 2012/2013 tour by the band. A possible addition for another disamb link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The award for the 10th Wikipedian to have 500,000 edits[edit]

Museo del Bicentenario - Llave simbólica de Chaco.jpg The key to the room that holds the rolls of scripts inscribed with the secrets of Wikipedia
Here, I reward you with the key to THE ROOM THAT HOLDS THE SCROLLS OF WIKIPEDIA SECRETS! For being the tenth wikipedian to pass 500,000 edits! Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Another award[edit]

Along with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Marzan (talkcontribs) 02:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Another award[edit]

Along with this. The key to deleting vandal's contributions and nuking them.

delete Key

--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa123|UPage|☺★ (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistake[edit]

You disambiguated to Gaza City in this edit, but the other two terms are regions, so it should probably be Gaza Strip. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaza City has historically been its own formally recognized region, whereas the Gaza Strip has never been a "region" in the same historical sense that Judea and Samaria have been. In fact, "Gaza Strip" has only recently had any geographic meanings, as a convenient lumping together of lands that passed through various controlling governments over the past half-century or so. I don't think that it is likely that a rabbi who probably wouldn't even recognize the existence of the division of government controlling the land would, in 1993, have included this modern invention, "Gaza Strip", with ancient regional designations. bd2412 T 01:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, even though in modern term the Gaza Strip is probably the better term for the region. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

RfD DNA Testing[edit]

You added a comment about DNA Testing but I think accidetally you missed cos it is added under the section for Katherine Cooks Briggs, immediately above. I don't like to change others' comments but I think you might like to move it. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that was weird. Thanks! bd2412 T 17:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My Watchlist[edit]

Dear BD24112, you were previously on my watchlist, but I have removed it. Nevertheless, my watchlist continues to be cluttered every time you start moving all htose articles out of your sandbox. Like today. There seems to be a wire crossed, so to speak. Any help would be appreciated. thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 14:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • For those to show up, you must still be watching something of mine. I would suggest that you try the [Edit raw watchlist] link on your watchlist page, and then search and delete anything with "BD2412" in it. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks. I am manually removing them. I thought I had done that, but will try again. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 14:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Otherwise, I have a few dozen more of these to do over the next few days, and then I should be done with them for good. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have the same question. I don't have your user page or your user talk page on my Watchlist but I'd say 50% of my Watchlist right now consists of page moves you are doing. And you have a few dozen more?! Liz Read! Talk! 16:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but once they're done, they're done for good and should quickly fade into the past. I honestly don't know why my userspace stuff is showing up on anyone's watchlist who is not intentionally watching it, except that I have archived my talk pages there from time to time. bd2412 T 16:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
All done. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proper close?[edit]

Hello.

Thanks for closing and moving as proposed in the discussion at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's super-G. The only thing I wonder about is if your close was technically correct, as the newly created redirects to the moved talk pages immediately afterwards were updated as if there were a new discussion. (I noticed it, because they're on my watchlist.) In addition, the link to the original discussion wasn't removed from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions by the bot. From my experience, this usually doesn't happen.

But it could possibly be attributed to a bug in the RMCD bot. What do you think?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Good catch - fixed. bd2412 T 22:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:USCJ marked as inactive[edit]

Just notifying you that somebody has marked WP:USCJ as being an inactive wiki-project. Safiel (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I have addressed this. bd2412 T 03:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hän people[edit]

I think that you may have made your comment in the wrong section. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, fixed. bd2412 T 03:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

thank you for your support of the RMs I filed, which my regular opponent who created the problems with those title is trying to shut down discussion on. He doesn't want the proposals to get the support they deserve, point-blank, and is trying all sorts of manoeuvres to prevent the reversions; he rarely worked on any article he changed, in fact I don't think he even read them.

Noting your interests on your userpage, I'd like to draw your attention to indigenous legal and constitutional cases in Canada; there is no list or article on that yet, though there is a category which should be findable by Delgamuukw v. the Queen, wherever that redirects to now. this is an important legal topic across Canada; in BC complicated by the absence of treaties per the mandate of teh Royal Proclamation of 1763. 'Nuff said for now, though if I create List of aboriginal legal cases in Canada I'll let you know. Interesting reading for a law fan, btw.Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  • It will probably be quite a while before I clear my plate of my current set of projects and begin adding new ones. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, here's Category:Canadian Aboriginal case law if you feel like some interesting reading. Many things are not in that category as of yet as the court battles are ongoing and most more recent ones have not yet been added as articles, though many such cases are on band government pages and elsewhere. Then there's things like Fred Quilt inquiry which was not a court case but an inquiry into the death of an aboriginal leader beaten to death by RCMP. Canada's really not the "peaceable kingdom" its international presskit presents it as.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • here's another much more recent case not concerning an aboriginal person's death, but a Polish visitor at Vancouver airport Robert Dziekański Taser incident; there is a subsequent legal case beyond the Braidwood Inquiry. For another aboriginal death by RCMP see Darren Varley.Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dabs vs SIAs[edit]

In this edit[1] you converted a dab page to a SIA. This means that any editors that create a link to that page won't get a bot notification that the link is ambiguous. Is there any advantage in that page being a SIA rather than a dab? DexDor (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not really ambiguous, since the subjects are related, and can be referred to at the same time (e.g. "Joe took both AP English tests") in a way that truly ambiguous subjects generally can not be. In fact, this is exactly the kind of usage that appears in articles like Daniel Hand High School. bd2412 T 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for administrative close at Talk:Pablo Casals[edit]

Before I continue, I would like to thank you for the extensive time you have spent editing Wikipedia. It is due to editors like you that Wikipedia is as successful as it is.
There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals that appears likely to warrant an administrative close. I saw how excellently you handled the situation at Talk:Bradley Manning a few months ago and immediately thought of you when considering the current request for comments. The dispute is similar in that it concerns issues such as common name, but in the sense of differences between languages (so MOS:FOREIGN and WP:EN). The standard thirty day duration ends in one week. Would you accept an invitation to close the discussion after this, as you did at Talk:Bradley Manning? The disagreement is self-contained, with references given at Talk:Pablo Casals and no prior knowledge or research of the subject being necessary. I believe that all would benefit from an administrator as familiar and thorough with Wikipedia policy as you. 86.137.43.20 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), the original nominator of the request for comments, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.

I have made a request at WP:ANRFC for an administrator to assess the consensus at Talk:Pablo Casals now that the thirty days are over. If you have sufficient time and would like to do this, then I am sure that the editors there would appreciate your expertise. Of course, if you are busy, then I apologise for troubling you. 86.137.43.20 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
BD2412, can I suggest please don't close this. I think it will only encourage 131.111.185.66 in these kind of approaches, best to let the RfC close happen by itself. This is nothing like Bradley Manning - this is more akin to an English/Irish article content dispute where the name of an Irish person must be put in English across all of several 100 articles. However I am at a loss to provide a parallel, since I have never seen a similar case before. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

An exciting month of wiki events![edit]

Hello there,

I am pleased to say that April will be a very exciting month for Wikipedia in Washington, DC. We have a lot of different events coming up, so you will have a lot to choose from.

First, a reminder that our second annual Women in the Arts Edit-a-Thon will take place on Sunday, March 30 at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.

Coming up in April, we have our first-ever Open Government WikiHack with the Sunlight Foundation on April 5–6! We are working together to use open government data to improve the Wikimedia projects, and we would love your help. All are welcome, regardless of coding or editing experience. We will also be having a happy hour the day before, with refreshments courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation.

On Friday, April 11 we are having our first edit-a-thon ever with the Library of Congress. The Africa Collection Edit-a-Thon will focus on the Library's African and Middle East Reading Room. It'll be early in the morning, but it's especially worth it if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of African topics.

The following day, we are having our second annual Wiki Loves Capitol Hill training. We will discuss policy issues relevant to Wikimedia and plan for our day of outreach to Congressional staffers that will take place during the following week.

There are other meetups in the works, so be sure to check our meetup page with the latest. I hope to see you at some of these events!

All the best,
James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for fixing the links for Elitserien → Swedish Hockey League! Bandy boy (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • It was no problem. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

In case you didn't notice yet, User:Tvoz and User:Dezastru have indicated that your notifications about the survey may have been incomplete or otherwise inadequate. Please double-check, and complete whatever notifications are missing. It would be a shame for all this participation to yield no valid outcome. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Since we are still at the very beginning of the process, this should resolve any issue with the appropriateness of the notification process. In order to avoid notifying people who were already participating in the discussion, I had filtered out all of the names on the talk page (which accidentally included more than the names in the discussion). Cheers! bd2412 T 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am taking a Wikibreak for a week. bd2412 T 03:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WP Law in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Law for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary panel[edit]

They've had it a week now. What do you think is going on? Impasse? Personally, I thought they closed the discussion prematurely. Just because 7 days have gone by does not mean discussion is complete. It was still very active. --B2C 22:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@B2C,User:BD2412 - Ditto on B2C's comments. RfC could have been longer. Hillary Panel could have returned its judgement faster. This is beginning to look like shenanigans to me. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@TParis, Adjwilley, BrownHairedGirl: - Pinging involved panel members to see if we can get a response. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry folks, the delay has been entirely my fault. It was quite a complex discussion to analyse, and I needed more time to think about than I had envisaged. I hope that we will have a decision within the next few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: - Thanks for the update, and thanks for paying so much attention to the issue! No problems on the delay. Understand that there are a lot of potential complexities here.
May be worth posting a note to the talk page in case anyone else is wondering. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I am on a Wikibreak, and don't plan to be back until this matter is resolved and done with. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@bd2412 - Hope you're enjoying your wikibreak! I you're reading your talkpage comments, you're no REALLY on Wikibreak! NickCT (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)