You have recently added to the above article some intriguing new products. Can you tell why? I refer to these items listed in the Infobox Defunct Company:
Hi, please be careful when dabbing Durham - in this edit you used Durham. That is the city itself, but it is clear from the context that it should have been to Durham - a much larger area; I fixed it. I've not been through your edits, but of the eight or nine that have appeared on my watchlist, every one used Durham as the replacement, and I suspect that it isn't always correct. Please review your recent edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Up until today, "Durham" was an article about the city of Durham, England; any links that were pointing there that did not intend the city were already erroneous before I got here. bd2412T 23:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick Thank You for taking care of these. I would not worry about pre-existing errors; they'll be more likely fixed after your changes as the pages come up on watchlists or are otherwise noticed and checked, but even if not the dab links need fixing.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. For the record, I have been trying to pick out errors all along (mostly links intended for Durham, North Carolina and Durham, Ontario, and a few that explicitly refer to "County Durham"). bd2412T 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there - I moved the draft content over to Newlywed. I would think that that would be the place to make further edits. I think it's a good little article at this point - well done! Dohn joe (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Please revert yourself here. EdJohnston was a neutral third-party who reverted himself after I raised an objection on his talk page. You are not neutral in this. As you have seen, these RMs have not been unanimous - each one is getting considered on its own merits, which is a good thing. But they should be closed by uninvolved editors. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely will not. The close was correct. Your post-close commentary misrepresented (or, in any case, applied your own unencylopedic misunderstanding of) the relevant policies. You didn't point out to User:EdJohnston the dozen or so other recent cases where other closers have found consensus over your exact objections. His reversal was therefore a product of your false pretenses. The better course of action here would be for you to reverse your vote in the discussion. bd2412T 17:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Having thought it over, I have reverted to avoid any question as to the propriety of the close. bd2412T 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for changing your mind and allowing the RM to be closed by a neutral editor. Please don't chide me for misunderstanding policies, and misrepresenting closes, though. I pointed him to Talk:Confessions, which, as you know, had examples of both "moved" and "not moved" outcomes. How is that one-sided? Dohn joe (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The titles that were not moved in that request are not comparable to "postcards", the plural form of a physical object. However, I can see that I have allowed my initial shock at the reversal of the move to get the better of me, and I apologize for impugning your character in my responses. I think we just have very different philosophies when it comes to reflecting the cultural and historic importance of ideas and innovations, and that is coming out in a protracted sense through these discussions. bd2412T 18:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree about our difference in philosophy. I hate when these things happen - I've always respected your contributions to WP (and still do, of course). I know we both believe we're doing the best for the readership. Dohn joe (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Feel to free to ignore this if you're not interested in a conversation, but I'd like to explore our philosophies on plurals to see if we can't get a better understanding of where we're coming from. One technique that I've picked up along the way is to have each person try to describe and explain the other person's position, with as much good faith and objectivity as possible. It can often lead to insights and increased understanding on both parts. Would you be willing to give that a shot? I'd be very interested to see how you describe your perception of my position on the plural naming issue. If not, no worries! Dohn joe (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that you've made your position fairly clear - you believe that we should make it as easy as possible for readers to find articles, with little weight being given to the historical importance of topics with potentially ambiguous names. I would guess that you are a college-aged white male American, and you probably edit with an idealistic image in mind of Wikipedia readers having the same level of pop culture exposure and interest as yourself. You have probably already effectively written off the population of potential readers who are known to be dubious of Wikipedia's tendency to give more coverage to pop culture topics than to topics of greater historical impact. You have also expressed the opinion that people are more likely to look up topics by singular names rather than plural names, and conversely that plural titles are more likely to be searched with the intent of finding topics with plural titles. You believe that it is therefore more likely to be an inconvenience to the reader to arrive at an article for a topic other than what they were looking for than it would be for them to arrive at a disambiguation page. Have I missed anything? bd2412T 02:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. You got much of the philosophy right, although you're a bit off on the demographics. I'm easily double the age of the average college kid, and I am not particularly interested in pop culture as an encyclopedic subject area. I do very much though believe that we should try to help our readers navigate as best as we can. If they want to read about Bookends instead of bookends, why should we send them somewhere else just because we think bookends are more important? I don't see my position as writing off potential readers, but facilitating actual readers. As for the singular/plural search/link trends, I only think that because every search I've done backs it up. Two months ago (or whenever) I had no opinion whatsoever. But the pageview stats seem overwhelming. Anyhow, hope that fleshes out my thoughts a bit. Dohn joe (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you just come across as being very young at heart. The problem here is that the pop culture topics are ephemeral. For example, Stars redirects to Star, an article about the astronomy topic. Maybe if Wikipedia was around 50 years ago, someone would have preferred to make that a disambiguation page because the film, Stars (film), had only been released a few years. If it was 40 years ago, people might be thinking of a then-popular Cher album or Dan Fogelberg song. These topics are no longer popular, or even much remembered, but the astronomy topic remains the stable primary topic of the term. The topics that are of greater historical importance will continue to be when the pop culture topics are done, making it inevitable that plural titles that are not redirected today will be redirected at some future point, when pop culture interest has followed its usual waning pattern. As Joe Cannon famously said, "the pendulum swings back". By keeping an eye on topics of long-term historical importance, we avoid needing to change titles back and forth as the flashes cross the pan, and we avoid looking ridiculous and unencyclopedic for failing to recognize these points of historical importance. bd2412T 22:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand that position - to an extent. I don't think we need to change primary topics every time a new album comes out. But what about Bookends? It was released 46 years ago and still today gets 10 times the views of Bookend. Wikipedia 2014 agrees with Wikipedia 1968. It seems unlikely that the object will overtake the album in our lifetime. So how long do we wait for the "real" topic to become the more "popular" topic? Dohn joe (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You might note that I have not voted in support of moving and redirecting Bookends - the reason being that I doubt that the object is particularly significant historically. There is a range of importance for historical topics, with trinkets like bookends on one end, and on the other end things like wheels and levers, swords and shields, bows and arrows, and ideas and emotions. bd2412T 01:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but neither have you opposed the move. And I still don't think I'm getting across the point about singular versus plural usage. Do you agree that singularly-titled pages (like Chair) generally get about 10-20 times as many views as plurally-titled pages (like Chairs)? If so, shouldn't that have some impact in our titling decisions? Dohn joe (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The question remains, how are people arriving at Chair or Chairs? Are they going to the search box and typing "Chair"? Are they going to Google and searching for "Wikipedia Chairs", which yields the singularly titled "Chair" as the first return? Are they browsing through other articles like Musical chairs and Carousel , which happen to have a link to the singular "Chair". Over 300 articles link to "Chair"; less than 20 link to the redirect, "Chairs"; that by itself could account for the singular getting 10-20 times as many hits, as people reach the article not by searching for the exact title, but by clicking links that they expect to lead to the title. In Musical chairs, for example, the link is formatted as [[chair]]s, which appears as chairs, so the reader thinks that they are clicking on a title with a plural name. bd2412T 03:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you on the Achievement Hunter Talk page and wanted to ask you about a article I am making, Draft:Achievement Hunter. I think this would be a suitable page for AH, especially since the main Rooster Teeth section about AH has been trimmed ALOT. Any thoughts on my article would be great! Please post them HEREEoRdE6 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you but I notice you have contributed to this page. The large-scale content removal, particularly by Footballfan49, seems to be vandalism but I don't have the topic knowledge to judge how far back down the history to revert to. Can you help, please? Just Chilling (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I really know nothing about the topic. bd2412T 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking and sorry for troubling you. Just Chilling (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C☎ 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't wear both hats as you do, so I can't relate to the sublitles of editor action vs admin action. Perhaps you should rephrase your ANI post to ask another admin to step in instead? I have the upmost respect for you after your close on the Chelsea Manning spat-- of which I disagreed with in part, so hopefully that speaks volumes about my opinion of your overall judgement. So please don't take my suggestion as harsh critiscm. Ignore the comment about this not being your finest hour and move on. Respectfully, Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 11:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have withdrawn from the matter. bd2412T 13:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As you've probably noticed, this report seems to have broken a few days back. If you wouldn't mind, please leave templates unfixed for a few days, as this might help diagnose the problem. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I will need to fight every instinct in my nature to do that, but I'll do it. Cheers! bd2412T 14:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there - seems like over the past month or so, we've been getting a fairly good idea of how the community is currently feeling about these plural dabs. (Supporting redirects to the singular for most, but not all.) What say after this current round of RMs winds up, we go to the RussBot page and see which we might be able to move without clogging up the RM page? I realize that I requested we consider each of these individually, and I appreciate that you have done so. But now, it seems like it might be more efficient to go through the list at once (or at least in chunks). I'd be happy to help go through. What do you say? Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I consider you a good barometer of whether such a move would be considered "controversial" by RM standards, so let me know which ones you think would not be controversial (i.e., which ones you would not object to) and I'll be glad to move those right away. You may also want to look at User:RussBot/Plural redirects to dab pages, which is the next group of issues I plan to attack (although these would be RfD cases and not RMs). Cheers! bd2412T 19:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I'll try to start going through them in the next few days. Dohn joe (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay - first pass through A-L. I'd say we can comfortably move the following:
Craggs - this is not a plural of a singular "cragg" - these are clearly different names
Downlands - by one of your tests, "downlands" does not appear once in the Downland article - the plural seems to be "Downs"
That's what I've got so far. Let me know what you think. Dohn joe (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I did all of them except for Deeds. My sense there is that when people refer to "deeds" in the plural, they are more likely to be talking about "actions" (e.g. good deeds, dirty deeds) that about the legal document. I have created Draft:Deed (action) to provide the missing article there. bd2412T 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:INTDABLINK requires that intentional links to disambiguation pages be made through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, so that it is clear to disambig fixers (human and bot alike) that the link is not an error requiring repair. With respect to formatting, such a link could be formatted as [[Polyanthos (disambiguation)]] or [[Polyanthos (disambiguation)|Polyanthos]], but the former presentation lets the reader know right away that the link will take them to another disambiguation page, and not to a substantive article. bd2412T 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, since you seem to know your way around dab pages, could you take a look at this one please: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology? Seems to me this qualifies more as a WP:DABCONCEPT, but I'm not sure which templates would apply. --Midas02 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that this is really a WP:DABCONCEPT issue. These are two geographically distinct entities, even if they have a common origin. They are not exactly examples of the same kind of thing, in the sense that there is a distinct kind of thing that is a "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology", of which these are two examples. bd2412T 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I declined your g7 request. It is not appropriate for closed discussions where there are other participants. You can always try to nominate it at WP:TFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I was just following the instructions in the message I received above, which I have been receiving intermittently for months, to my unending annoyance. bd2412T 00:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have deleted it so it won't ping. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that changing Warthog to Common Warthog was controversial.....IUCN and ITIS refers to the species as Common Warthog, and now that Warthog has been split as Desert Warthog and Common Warthog, keeping Warthog as the common name only confuses the issue, since common names are usually further clarified, when a single common name is split.....when you refer to the animal Warthog, are you referring to the Common Warthog?, the Desert Warthog, both??.......Pvmoutside (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Any page move that creates a large number of erroneous incoming links will be controversial. More to the point, there are several kinds of elephant, but Elephant is an article, not a disambiguation page; there are several kinds of bushpig, but Bushpig is not a disambiguation page. Clearly, the existence of subspecies of a type of animal does not make that an ambiguous topic. It makes it a supertopic with subtopics. Where there are only two kinds of a thing, we do not use a disambiguation page to distinguish them anyway, per WP:TWODABS; we determine which one is the primary topic and if necessary provide a hatnote to the secondary topic (which does not seem to be necessary here, since the secondary topic is already discussed in the lede). bd2412T 02:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
so in the case of elephant, the article body refers to a number of different species of elephant, so the article name is proper, and you can find a down link to the specific species of elephant, with separate articles. In the case of the Bushpig, there is only 1 species, with a few subspecies. Pages are usually only available for species, not subspecies, so in that case, the page is also deemed proper. In the case of the Warthog, it originally did not have a classifier, since it was the only species in it's genus. There was a recent species split, so Desert Warthog is now considered a distinct species, not a subspecies. Desert Warthog now has it's own page, and Warthog should be changed to Common Warthog to distinguish it from the Desert species following common name naming rules. Further mucking up the issue is other things other tham mammals are called Warthog. The problem arises as you point out the large number of erroneous links. To clarify, I think the article should be moved from Warthog to Common Warthog, the Warthog disambiguation page linked to Common Warthog since that is by far the most common usage, and a Warthog (disambiguation) page be created to link to all articles named Warthog. I'll look through the articles linked to Warthog to make sure they link properly.....Would that work?.......Pvmoutside (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Rethinking, perhaps a better thing to do is to rewrite the Warthog page to a page referencing the genus, then creating a Common Warthog page to reference the species......the Warthog (disambiguation) page would reference everything else. Most of the text on the Warthog page relates to both species as will most of the links after I dismbiguate.....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That is definitely a workable idea. Zebra would be another good model. bd2412T 23:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wildebeast is another good model. Eland is another. The warthog genus Phacochoerus would then become a redirect since it would be duplicative. I'll move the info over the next few weeks after I get done with disambiguating......Pvmoutside (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Eland, what do you think of moving the Eland page to Eland (disambiguation), then moving the Taurotragus page to Eland, referencing the Eland disambig page on the Eland/Taurotragus page? I'm guessing Taurotragus gets more looks then any of the other pages for Eland... Would that be something for requsted moves?????
I agree, that seems like a good idea. bd2412T 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have linked Gaya Junction Railway Station directly. If you think that this is not okay, please do as required. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you have done this correctly. Thank you. bd2412T 14:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just noticed your close at Talk:PATH_(rail_system). Even though it wasn't the exact outcome that I preferred most, I appreciate that you provided a thorough analysis of a rather tricky discussion with numerous proposals and a consensus that wouldn't be totally clear by tallying bolded !votes alone.--Yaksar(let's chat) 01:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I try to be thorough. Cheers! bd2412T 04:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Undersigned had created article Legal awareness in may 2012. Since then I updated and improved the article many times in past one and half year.
I will be happy if you help me in reassessing tags in article namely {{Multiple issues|confusing|date=February 2013|reason=Laudable effort has been put into this article, but it seems rambling and incoherent.}}{{essay-like|date=February 2013}}
and also
may be article is due for udating class status futher from {{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Mid}}.
I suppose a peer feedback will help me improve the artle content still further. You are one of experinced and active WikiProject Law members, and I request your kind support in this respect.
But there are a large number of disambiguation links - see here. Having them go to a disambiguation page makes them easier to disambiguate. StAnselm (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The fact that erroneous links are made to a primary topic does not by itself upset the primacy of that topic. I frequently fix incorrect incoming links to Apple and Mouse without thinking that these should be disambiguation pages. In any case, a "Foo" page can not redirect to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, because use of the disambiguator suggests that the undisambiguated form is a primary topic (see WP:MALPLACED); if you believe that the term, "Luke" is ambiguous, the correct solution is to moveLuke (disambiguation) to Luke. bd2412T 21:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, do you feel like fixing all the links to Luke, then? StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! bd2412T 22:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am on behalf of EurovisionNim whose photo got reverted by some IP address. This reversion was unnecessary and I thought this could be a good photo. Some random IP's are reverting this photo which is very necessary for the cover image.
I am not clear on what you are requesting. Are you asking that the article be protected, or that an image related to the article be protected? bd2412T 14:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you deleting pages on recent changes, so I assume you are an admininstrator. Could you help merging two articles about the same person? Anastasiya Pidpalova and Anastasiya Borodina. Also the wikidata-items should be merged, but I guess the two articles on en.wp should be merged first. Thanks in advance. --Wikijens (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, and done. Cheers! bd2412T 15:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Wikijens (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
AfD for Republic of Georgia (1861)...and more needed[edit]
I'm not very experienced in removing "articles" like this. I noticed your comment on the AfD so I assume it is still active. What is the general rule of when such thinly/read commented articles like this get a decision?
I came across the Republic of Georgia wikilink elsewhere and thought I should see what it was about, then followed to the AfD. There are several others similarly dubious: Republic of Florida a single sentence of entirely un-sourced speculation created by the same user that suggests the Georgia one should be saved. A few weeks ago the same user created the "Pre-CSA States" template to go along with this and seems to be creating "infoboxes" for this "Republic of" stuff in various articles as well including the Louisiana secession that the "Republic of Louisiana" page was redirected to as a result of AfD. I probably need to start reviewing the histories and challenging these entries.
Several of these "Republic of" articles were created by a different user back in 2006. There is an old Alabama Republic article that sources the name to a single (author unknown) "This flag has often been referred to as the Republic of Alabama Flag" from the state archives site...not terribly compelling. When I asked about FL and AL, Rjensen described them as "junk articles not based on suitable reliable secondary sources. They are inventions and should be deleted--'State' is the proper terminology." Republic of Mississippi's source consists of a similarly dubious flag link, and thin--primarily just a posting of the Ordinance of Secession.
I'm wondering if these should be submitted as a group, but individually voted/commented on. Red Harvest (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed mergers for all of them at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. To the extent that any of these either called themselves republics or were called that by others, the "Republic of" titles can harmlessly redirect to the "[State] in the American Civil War" titles. bd2412T 17:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed you have been updating the Westwood One links to the Westwood One (1976–2011) article. Problem with this is, some radio stations use the new Westwood One, which can be found under the Westwood One (current) article. Unfortunately, this isn't an easy fix (ie: AWB) but updating each page one by one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the thing to do then would be to have someone with the expertise to determine the correct result go through the links to Westwood One (1976–2011) and fix those that need to point to Westwood One (current) (although I also think the latter title needs to change to something link Westwood One (2014-), since we try to avoid referring to the "current" status of anything). bd2412T 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Check with @Mlaffs: and @Dravecky:, as well as the folks at WP:WPRS. They will be able to help with both. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer(Talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this would be a worthwhile endeavor. bd2412T 18:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Good luck with that one; I probably wouldn't have closed it that way given the recent discussion, half opposed, and the included references to Britannica (arguably "more reliable" sources did use caps). I guessed the discussion would be relisted yet again given what's been going on at Talk:Watts Riots and Talk:Pottawatomie Massacre, although I did put through recently a few at Talk:Villatina massacre. Hope it goes smoothly and wanted to make sure you're aware that the IP was likely an SPA and that the nominator !voted for his own proposal twice. Dekimasuよ! 19:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw that, but it was still 2/1 favoring the move even discounting what I read as a "reaffirmation of self" vote. Also, one event can take on a proper name while another similar event fails to do so. At the end of the day, the votes can be gamed but the evidence can not be so easily. bd2412T 19:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with BD2412. Whilst I was vigorously opposed to that move, as I'm sure has been made apparent, there was really no other way to close that discussion with the way that it turned out. Personally, I think it never should've been allowed to have been opened so soon after the previous request. It's just the same people making the same arguments over and over again, with little in the way of participation by anyone else. Hopefully the broad participation in the Watts Riots move will put the final nail in the coffin of this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi buddy, Is there some technical glitch currently going on with Dab solver, because when i am trying to fix Disambiguation at Articles with the most disambiguation links The new link which openes is showing "No redirect found" with details on page as "We've moved! We're sorry, but the user-supported tool you have attempted to reach
did not leave a forwarding URL where we could automatically redirect you."( !dea4u 09:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC))
I saw that too. I have no knowledge of the cause. bd2412T 14:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 83 12:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, did you find some evidence supporting this edit? I can vaguely remember having researched it, but the chronology of the dates doesn't add up. That particular architect died long before the building was built. --Midas02 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I can find no other prominent "George W. Smith" working as an architect in the art deco area. It is likely that the building was designed before 1930, and then built after his death. Cheers! bd2412T 16:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with the observations, but it's all very circumstantial, and far from certainty which should be the basis for disambiguation. On top of that, George Smith was one of the most common English names of that period. So I'll unlink it. If someone ever knows which architect this is concerning, he/she can always add a link. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
"George Smith" may have been a common name, but "George W. Smith" is a point of distinction, and an architect named "George W. Smith" who was making Art Deco designs (as this biography suggests) would be a less common thing still. bd2412T 15:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an AwesomeHoliday and a HappyNewYear, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Paine
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
I read your decision. There was no consensus for Skookum to unilaterally move the page and change the focus, but I learned too late that should have given me the right to automatically revert. I do not think it was a fair decision since the "move request" was a clearly an attempt to protest a "move with no consensus" that had already happened.
Since then he added mostly unsourced content that changed the focus of the article. Now, it's too late to do another move. I checked the possible sources and I found it is possible to have an article focusing on Chinese in British Columbia (as a province). However I also believe there should be a specific article about the Chinese in (Greater) Vancouver. The only step I have is to keep adding content to the article until it needs to be split. The only other alternative I can think of is just re-creating the larger article under its former title and then refocusing the former article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Please close discussions of "Republic" article merges that were merged or deleted[edit]
The separate AfD for "Alabama Republic" resulted in deletion of the article, making the merger discussion moot. I don't know what the method is for closing the merge discussion in Talk:Alabama_in_the_American_Civil_War and deleting the template. AfD for "Republic of Mississippi" resulted in its conversion to a redirect so the merge discussion should be closed in Talk:Mississippi_in_the_American_Civil_War. AfD for "Republic of Florida" has resulted in deletion so merge discussion at Talk:Florida_in_the_American_Civil_War can be closed. Thanks for your help. Red Harvest (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I will have a look back at it later in the week. bd2412T 20:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Update, it's a clean sweep. "Republic of South Carolina" has also been redirect merged today, so its South Carolina in the American Civil War template and discussion should be closed as well. Red Harvest (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you asking me to do the merges or merely close the discussions? I think any formal closure needs to be done by an uninvolved party. Cheers! bd2412T 13:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I was requesting closure of the merge discussions on the talk pages, since the actions have been completed or superseded as part of the AfD process. If it takes a third party to do the closure that is okay. I don't see this as controversial at this stage, just thought we should tidy up the loose ends left by the parallel processes. Red Harvest (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you closed a very cantekerous discussion on Worcester. I am in support of the move, but, regardless, the move request was just opened 2 days ago, after a prolonged time spent in move review. The move request should probably stay open for all 7 days, to let those who want to weigh in, weigh in. It wasn't open for two months, rather, open for a couple weeks, closed for two months for review, then reopened on the 28th of December. Cheers!
Also, thanks for being impartial on it regardless, it's a pretty thankless job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The request was listed in the backlog, and the only move request template on the page was for a request filed on October 23. These things can not go on forever, and should not be repeated endlessly, as this lends the appearance of one side trying to beat the other into submission by making the process itself interminable. A new request can be filed in, say, six months without having such a shadow over it. bd2412T 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know the drill for the t-shirt, as the only ones I have were bought from the Wikimedia Shop. Nick Number (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. I'm sending you an email. Cheers! bd2412T 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you relisted this move request a few weeks ago. I've added some new references justifying the move, and the editor who was objecting (Alexbrn) is now in agreement. I'm also leaving a note on Andrewa's page, since his opinion is not clear to me. Would you mind checking the discussion again to see if you think it would be appropriate to execute the move? Thanks RustavoTalk/Contribs 14:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't Blue Line (Pittsburgh) be redirected to Blue Line#Pennsylvania? The edit history shows it's been going back and forth to a redirect for a while, and I don't know what version should win. Is an AfD appropriate if there are two conflicting views? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Some kind of procedure is appropriate, since efforts to conform the page to WP:INCOMPDAB have been reverted. It probably requires a merge request. bd2412T 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have made a requested move for the Nishonoseki stable article. As you have previously been involved in reverting the original move, you may wish to participate in the discussion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. bd2412T 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Next time you block and revert someone on another wiki, atleast make sure that they are actually a "vandal"...--Stemoc 05:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry. We have had a pattern lately at Wikiquote of vandals (or at least one vandal) setting up multiple accounts, vandalizing with one account and then switching to a second to perform additional vandalism, sometimes in the guise of reverting the initial vandalism. I mistook this for that. Again, my humblest apologies for my rather slow-witted blunder. bd2412T 06:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of that vandal and i have encountered him a few times already on that wiki..I only realized i was blocked when i saw my name pinging on an IRC channel i watch as an SWMT member..the vandal in question uses account names which are always intimidating and easy to detect...Please, next time make sure you go through the contribs of everyone you feel is a vandal..its the least you can do as a trusted admin on that project...and thanks for the unblock....btw, its about time the projects does a CU on that vandal and block his IP range for good..I believe the longer you allow a vandal to vandalise on a project, the harder it becomes to get rid of them--Stemoc 12:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, I need to get some rest and focus up. bd2412T 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello BD2412. Saw your recent edit for Buttered cat paradox. Although your statements about the weight of a cat vs a piece of bread is quite reasonable, it would be nice if the reader is able to look up your citations either online or in a library. Since "Carol Himsel Daly, Maine Coon Cats: A Complete Owner's Manual, (Barron's, 1995), p. 11." and "American Medical Association, Today's Health (1957), p. 25." does not appear to be available online, would it be possible if you can supply either ISBN Number and/or a WorldCatOCLC number? These numbers can help the reader locate the books at a bookstore or the library.
Would it be possible for you to use the Template:Cite book template {{cite book}} when citing books? It would be most helpful to other editors if you are able to do that. Thanks. 69.95.126.74 (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The OCLC number for the cat book is 32388968. The AMA publication is actually a journal, and its OCLC number is 1605170. bd2412T 04:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
We're edit conflicting in places, but we have the same idea. It's under discussion on the talk page, if you wish to add weight there. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't had an edit conflict yet! ;-) bd2412T 15:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you were resolving the disambig links of Prajna. In two Hinduism sections in Vahana and Jnana, the Buddhism article was linked. Please link to Prajna (Vedic) for Hindu usage and Wisdom in Buddhism for Buddhist usage. Thanks. --RedtigerxyzTalk 04:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to filter out Hinduism pages, but there is some crossover. Most of these pages intend the Buddhist usage, so if you could weed out the Hindu pages, I will do the rest. bd2412T 05:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, I boldly closed Yvette RM, it was my first RM closure and I hope it went okay. I moved the page before closing which caused an edit conflict but I C&P'd my comments onto the new page, as a more experienced editor than me did it work okay? Feedback appreciated! Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good now. bd2412T 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I participate a lot in RM's but wanted to have a try at closing a move and that looked a certain close, just didn't want to mess it up. Thanks for moving the disambig page and general tidy :) Zarcadia (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
