User:BD2412/Archive 012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
By topic (prior to June 1, 2009):

Dated (beginning June 1, 2009):

The most belated congratulations imaginable[edit]

As I was looking through my old talk page archives, I came across this note you left me back in 2009. I was on wiki-vacation at the time, and never got it. Face-sad.svg From your user page, it looks like you passed -- congratulations! I'm sorry I've been terrible about keeping in touch. Glad to see you're still so active around here! All the best, – Quadell (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Never too late, coming from you, my friend. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Pond Life[edit]

There are currently eight pages needing to be disambiguated according to Dabsolver yet there actually is none pointing to it and there hasn't been for a long long time. I know that its was caused by the tool server when it was playing up but is there not a way to clear these kind of pages up.Blethering Scot 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can't figure something out. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I am no longer seeing any disambiguation links for this title. bd2412 T 21:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Diagnosis: Murder[edit]

There's no chance of relisting the RM? George Ho (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI Thread Closure[edit]

I closed a thread a few days ago as an uninvolved admin but I was asked by two editors, in good faith, to reopen it. I am capable of closing it again, but I think another admin would be beneficial. Would you please close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute and determine the consensus, if any? I've frozen the discussion because there has been little involvement of editors outside the dispute and the thread has resorted to bickering. I thought of you because you and I have next to zero interaction and I was impressed with your thoughtfulness and completeness in the Manning close.--v/r - TP 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw you responded below and then you got back to editing other things, did you miss this thread?--v/r - TP 18:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I just haven't gotten to it. Is there some immediacy to this? I figured on looking at it this evening. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I just wasn't sure if it was seen. Easy to miss when you have 2 messages but only 1 "You've got a message" message--v/r - TP 19:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Psst... the thread has archived, can you do something about it, and sort out a proper closure please? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just for reasons of clarity, are they banned from that article alone or from discussing/interacting etc about the subject of the Ludwig von Mises Institute? I ask because there are quite a few BLPs around that involve the subject of that article and the contributor is active at several of them. The BLPs relate to past and present scholars of the LvMI, people who have allegedly criticised/praised it, etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, the discussion was focused on a single article, and the proposal was directed to that single article. It would be a failure of due process for the prohibition to extend beyond that, unless other discussions were clearly being used as a proxy to argue for changes to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article itself. bd2412 T 12:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to close this.--v/r - TP 14:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks BD. I just wanted to be sure where we stand because I'm pretty sure that it is not an issue that is going to go away - it's a while since I've seen so much wikilawyering and acronym soup across a set of related articles! - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@BD2412: Thanks for your assistance and please don't forget to log the ban at Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions#2013. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. bd2412 T 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fong Sai-yuk (disambiguation)[edit]

There is already Fong Sai-yuk with list of media portrayals. Can you convert this to a set index? --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the existence of the list on the subject's page, I don't see why a disambiguation page exists at all. bd2412 T 18:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
What about AFD nomination? I already tried PROD, but was declined by another admin. --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Since there is an original person, rather than an original work, I will let sleeping dogs lie with this one. bd2412 T 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing scientists[edit]

From long experience with "missing" lists, it is not enough to bang down the names you have, you have to do a WP search. So the 2nd name on the list, Stuart Aaronson, just needed a redirect to Stuart A. Aaronson. Actual creation of new articles is likely to be pretty slow, but the attempt is a good one. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am indeed aware of the typical constraints, and the possibility that a redirect may be all that is needed. I have not had time to do more than a cursory review of a fragment of the list, which has over 6,000 names. However, I feel that given the published criticism of our lack of coverage of these scientists, I had to get something rolling. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The actual Oxford paper spoke of a list of only 1400 names, which would be more manageable; not sure where this is but it is supposed to be publicly available. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Although 1,400 names may be more manageable, Thompson Reuters lists over 6,000, and there is a strong likelihood that the vast majority of these should be included in Wikipedia. I would just as soon go ahead with the entire list. bd2412 T 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:EUTooManyStars.jpg[edit]

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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) reborn[edit]

It was now re-created as a dabpage again by another administrator. Will you leave it alone or do something about it? --George Ho (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Austrian economics sanction[edit]

Hey, thanks for doing the hard work at ANI in closing the discussion. I took the liberty of reformatting your addition to WP:AEGS to keep it consistent with other similar pages. I hope you don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
@Bbb23:@BD2412: One of you needs recuse from admin-ing the same topic-space. Your names are way too similar. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm going to have to assert my seniority, then. bd2412 T 14:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Seniority as to what? Wikipedia or ...? Besides, I don't think our user names are particularly similar. And bd2412's sig has that pretty yellow shading, whereas mine is the standard dull blue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Courts of the United States
Thank you for quality articles around justice in the United States such as Courts of the United States, and the concept of Confession, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 295th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 12:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lists of mathematics articles[edit]

In 2011, to implant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles, you moved a number of lists (e.g. List of mathematics articles (J)) to the WP namespace and suppressed the mainspace redirects. I think the redirects should probably be restored. They get about 1,500 hist per day each (see User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks and it's history), it's clear that regardless of whatever namespace they're in, our readers really want to read them, and the lists are linked to from the article namespace are linked to from the article namespace. Would you object to restoring these redirects, and does the straw poll prejudice against restoration? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no personal objection, but cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged. Alternately, you could just redirect all of them to Outline of mathematics, which is sort of a doorway to topics in the subject. bd2412 T 23:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll recreate them. I'm quite frimeller with cross-namespace redirects, and while they are usury undesirable, exceptions are not uncommon, and this is plorably about the strongest case for an exceptions I've ever seen. List of mathematics articles redirects to Lists of mathematics topics, but there seems little point in sending a reader there when he's specifically looking up the alphabetical list. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Minette (ore)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Minette (ore) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 13:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hullo. Yeah, see, I only translated the article from the German Wikipedia, rather than writing it from scratch. HOWEVER, I have found a source for the claim about the Early Jurassic era, which I have now included. It says "In northeastern France the celebrated minette ores of Lorraine have been the basis of a flourishing steel industry [...] In age they are mainly Upper Toarcian but extend locally into the Aalenian." A look at the terms Toarcian and Aalenian on Wikipedia indicates that these are in the Early and Middle Jurassic periods, respectively. Hope that will do. Dr Gangrene (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully, yes. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please check in again. Issues still remain. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Bangerz[edit]

I've nominated Bangerz for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 6#Bangerz. Since you participated in the RM discussion for Bangerz (album), you may be interested in commenting on this proposal.

Also, did you notice that you closed that discussion after participating in it? --BDD (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no particular prohibition against an administrator closing a discussion in which they have participated, so long as the close itself is neutral. I put on my housekeeping hat to help chip away at the backlog. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I don't particularly object to the outcome. But WP:RMCI warns against it, so I always mention it when I do an involved close. I've also almost (or maybe actually) closed a discussion after forgetting that I had participated. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I generally avoid closing contentious discussions where the close would align with my own preferences expressed in the discussion, but where the discussion comes out the opposite way, I have no concern about there being an appearance of bias. bd2412 T 18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


I don't know why level-two PC is used, despite "no consensus" in latest RFC discussion. But why not full protection? --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't say that I see the need for any additional level of protection. There is an established lack of consensus for having this title do anything but point to Iran, so any change to its status can just be reverted on that basis. In the meantime, inexperienced editors (i.e. typical anons) will not be able to accidentally disrupt the link. bd2412 T 16:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Obvious sockpuppetry is obvious. Jhenderson 777 21:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you submit this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? I would, but I am in a time crunch right this moment. Just show them the diffs where he makes the edit under account B, responds to the challenge under account A, then quickly deleted it and makes virtually the same response again as account B. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm back. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend that you officially open the investigation back up if you are a admin (which I do believe you are). I admit I didn't know what I was doing too much on there. My first time. I tried to figure out as I went along. :p Jhenderson 777 23:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm an admin, but not a checkuser. If DesignDeath is !voting from other accounts, it will take a checkuser to uncover that. bd2412 T 23:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I see. Good to know. I will respond to the one who did the checking then. Happy editing. Jhenderson 777 23:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding a wiki deletion[edit]

Hi, I need help with an issue I simply don't understand. I hope your experience as an editor on wikipedia can help me out here. I added a complete new article about the term: "888poker" about two weeks ago. I saw that you had edited its disambig. links which is fine and required. Other editors seemed to have gone over it and all was fine. I even received the brands' approval for uploading unique content like brand logo, in game photo, etc. Items that I believe can improve wiki users experience. Two days ago I found that a user called "2005" deleted my entire Wiki article, simply taking off the page and redirecting it to 888 holdings. I explained the basic difference between a well known brand and it's corporate term and even gave the example of pepsico (corporate) having a wiki as well as pepsi, 7up and all its other brands, which is the exact same situation here. The answer I received was unclear (and even rude). You can see the conversation here at the end of the page:

As all content uploaded was 100% new, informational & non spam. I have no idea why we wouldn't want to actually enhance wikipedia and improve it to users (isn't this the idea of wikipedia in the first place!?) As other editors who went over this did not find a reason to completely remove the article, I feel this is poor judgement by an editor and I request your experience as an editor to see if this is an acutal breach of wiki guidelines and give an editor's second opinion. I would appreciate any help on this issue. The original article can be found on the term "888poker" (view history). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


Does this edit violate the MilesMoney topic ban on LVMI? (With a BLP of a member of the LVMI?) Gaijin42 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban is on the LvMI article in specific, not on related articles. You'll also note that I restored a primary source directly mentioned by the preceding secondary source, which should never have been removed in the first place. So, in conclusion, no, this doesn't violate anything, but your eagerness to come here to try to get me blocked violates a whole bunch of things, starting with common decency. MilesMoney (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
As MilesMoney says, the topic ban discussed by the community was with respect to the article, Ludwig von Mises Institute. The topic ban and my involvement in this matter both end there. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to respect your preferences by not involving you further. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


Fixed per Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • My change followed the stated purposes of the redirects, why did you revert me? --evrik (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • CIA, GRU, and IRS are also redirects; sometimes a TLA has a primary topic. In this case, a discussion is needed to determine if a primary topic indeed exists for the term. Be patient. bd2412 T 21:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please double-check if you have done this incorrect change elsewhere. Thanks! PatríciaR msg 11:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

For most of its existence, UCI has been a redirect to Union Cycliste Internationale, so nothing should have pointed to that link that was not intended for the existing target; I have restored that redirect pending the outcome of the discussion at Talk:UCI (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 12:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For your good efforts. --evrik (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this will work out in the end. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for reverting my edits to land, and offering sufficiently substantive comment to begin a discussion. You make a very valid point though to include "rock" and indeed I could have written instead "
Land is dirt and rock which has horizontality to the planetary surface, foundation actual to human living, and psychic proportionality to human psychology."
Now, indeed I have not edited for a while, and my editing of that article was indeed a kind of a lark. That said, it raises an interesting issue for me that the concept of "land" has vital essences for living. Land indeed is not "dirt" exactly, however the abundance of what we typically call land is "dirt," in the sense that most of what we "see" as land is indeed flat and therefore of geological substance which is particulate rather than of conglomerated essence. "Rock" typically has the property of being of unusable form with regard to being "land." The point is that "Land," typically has some essence of being something people can use with regard to their living. The word "land" has an essence of meaning which is at the nexus of all uses of land, namely a "firmament for human living," and this is true whether the land is on dirt or rock or on some imaginary world of which has the property of being artificial, and therefore is made of substances which are not "geological." Or perhaps by definition anything which is of "geo" must therefore be of its "logic" and is therefore "land." But the current lede:
"Land, sometimes referred to as dry land, is the solid surface of the Earth, that is not covered by water."
Seems to lend to much substance to the distinction between land and water, without governing that distinction as a matter of conceptual language, which owns in the human mind the idea that "land" is indeed something of human living," while other essences "water" and "air" do not sustain human living. The article could get into this idea that some land is better than others, and likewise get into the idea that some land is "Holy," indeed not just because it has historical meaning and a psychic idea in the human mind, but a living in a way which transcends the very idea of "dirt." Hence I come back to the inevitable admission that my edits were indeed a bit cheeseball, but I am owning up to the idea that my comments here could be of construction here in this idea of saying what "land" is is more than just a geological thing in terms of physical nature, but something of a psychic construct which has an essence of human living and even some love in it, if the land is beautiful. -Warm regards, Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. You make some reasonable points, and I have added to the lede the observation that "land, and particularly those areas of land that support agriculture, hunting, and other human activities, may be invested with great emotional and cultural value". I think that the relationship between humanity and land is adequately summed up by this, and the second sentence of the lede, "The vast majority of human activity has historically occurred, and continues to occur, on land". Cheers! bd2412 T 16:08, 15 November 2013 (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) 05:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Springs[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Thank you. --NE2 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

At the time that I fixed the links, they were broken, an editor having turned the page to a disambiguation page. This action was later reverted by another editor. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Minesweeping as Broad Concept Article[edit]

Just wanted to flag up reservations on your request - the whole subject area has a lot of duplication already across various articles. Naval minesweeping is substantially different from demining (you generally use ships or aircraft, versus specialised vehicles or man-portable detecting devices for landmines). At first sight, I'd say that these are two different subjects with some similarities and the same name. I might add more thoughts on this later, but thought an immediate comment was appropriate. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is a level of abstraction below that of merely sharing the same name at which these concepts are connected, and can be described holistically (see Particle for an example of this). bd2412 T 01:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In the clear light of dawn, I think the issues are as follows: Previously, if you looked up Minesweeping you arrived solely at the demining page which, though it makes one mention of naval mines, says nothing about them or their removal. This subject is, however, very well deal with by the naval mine article and logically sits quite well within that article. (i.e. removal of naval mines is part of the overall subject of naval mines - since countermeasures affect their design). Additionally using the naval mines article as the source of minesweeping information leads into the closely related subject of minehunting. An alternative solution to this problem would be to put a disambiguation link at the start of the demining article that says "this article deals with the removal of land mines, for the removal of naval mines ..."(can't quite get the wording of this right). But this has problems in itself. There is a terminological shift going on. When the minefields of El Alamein were being cleared, that was talked about as "minesweeping". Nowadays the subject is usually referred to as "demining" (on land). Meanwhile naval terminology has really gone over to "mine countermeasures". So if someone looks up "minesweeping", their enquiry may arise from a historical context, or they may simply be using out of date terminology. I think it would be undesirable to have the relative importance of two subjects shifted by one being a disambiguation from another (it implies it is a subject of lesser importance). A further reason for not putting both naval and land mine removal in one article is that, as a subject, demining leads into all the ethical and economic problems produced by landmines. (Yes, this applies to some extent with naval mines, but as far as I am aware, to a much lesser degree and largely historically.) In short, it is a problem what to do with this. I suggest that the disambiguation page (as is) is the lesser of all evils - but I am open to ideas. (Sorry if I sound a bit exasperated.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, an extra step that is not used where not necessary. Here we have only two possibilities, meaning that (per WP:TWODABS) if one topic can be deemed primary, then the disambiguating function can be fulfilled by a hatnote at the top of that page. In other words, there is no need to send 100% of readers to a disambiguation page if half are looking for one option, and the second option can fit into a hatnote. In this case, the two topics are related - in fact, the material you present in your discussion above, if sourced, would provide the basis for an article section covering the shifting usage of the term, "minesweeping", which would further benefit readers looking for either of the two meanings. bd2412 T 12:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am revealing myself as something of a novice at this stuff, but I think a few issues still remain. Firstly WP:TWODABS repeatedly talks about "primary topic". To me this terms suggests an element of hierarchy. However, you talk about one topic being "deemed primary", which I translate to mean "not sure which is primary, let's pick this one". This would be the opposite treatment of the "John Quested" example. Secondly, if we use the hatnote option at the start of the demining article, the reader experience for someone who looked up "minesweeping" (with the naval context in mind) would be: (a) type in "minesweeping" (b) get redirected to demining (c) read the disambiguation at the top of the page and have to choose another option. Having already undergone a redirect, I believe that most people would find that irritating (something along the lines of "this computer thinks it is cleverer than I am" - probably true in my case, but I am sure you understand the sentiment). Thirdly, I have in mind the guidance under WP:2DAB "If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name." Of course, there could be a potentially emotional argument over the status of demining as the primary topic - but in this instance we have the advantage that anyone who searches for "demining" gets to that article without any redirects or disambiguation. It is only the reader who uses the older terminology who goes through whatever is finally settled upon. Finally, we have to bear in mind that not all readers have the same degree of computer literacy or familiarity with Wikipedia. So I suggest that editing guidelines should include some thoughts about simplicity of access. That would be relevant in this issue. Sorry to have "got up on my soap box" on this one (not sure if that phrase translates into US English) because, at the end of the day, it's not a massive issue. What we do need to avoid is the previous arrangement (the simple redirect to demining) which took a reader away from a subject that they had nearly found (if they wanted the naval context). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely at this point that most people who look for "minesweeping" are looking for the naval context, so that is probably the real primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 19:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since "minesweeping" is dealt with as a section of the naval mine article, I presume that you now think the Minesweeping disambiguation page is appropriate. If "Minesweeping" had an article of its own, then the hatnote solution would apply. To write such an article would involve a lot of duplication, since the naval mine and demining articles both cover their own parts of the subject admirably and the terminological shift is dealt with by either reading the naval mine article (which mentions the subject name "Mine Countermeasures" or (subconsciously) by exercising the choice on the disambiguation page that takes you to demining. I've now written much more than I intended on this subject; thanks for your patience. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Commas for tornados[edit]

I'm a bit disturbed by the outcome of the requested move you closed at Talk:April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak#Requested move.

To study the situation, I tried to sort out supporting versus non-supporting commentary, summarized as follows:

I suppose you are correct that the number supporting the move exceeds the number opposed (and I agree that George's views were not especially coherent). However, personally, I consider the supporting argumentation weak, since the move appears to clearly violate the useful WP:MoS guideline that promotes consistency (i.e., MOS:BADDATEFORMAT).

Many of the supporting comments seemed to be based on the idea that the guideline should be changed or ignored under certain circumstances, but I would counter with the notion that unless and until a guideline is changed, it should be followed.

Other supporting comments seem to be based on the fact that some other titles violate the guideline in the same way as what was suggested here, which seems like something that has a clear alternative solution (i.e., changing the other titles so that they obey the guideline too).

The final supporting argument (other than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT) seems to be that the guideline should apply only in complete sentences and not in sentence fragments or titles. However, to me, this seems to be just another way of advocating that the guideline should be changed to include an exception. Unless and until the guideline is changed, I suggest that it should be followed.

I suppose I must acknowledge that guidelines should have exceptions, but I don't see a prevailing strength of consensus here that seems sufficient to justify making such an exception in this case.

I don't think I have expressed a personal opinion about whether the WP:BADDATEFORMAT guideline is desirable or not. I think I would be OK if the guideline was changed. But it hasn't been changed.

My understanding is that a move closure should be based on the strength of the arguments and the relevant policies and guidelines, as well as just assessing whether most people like a suggestion or not. Personally, I don't see how this move closure is consistent with that principle. Of course, I am someone who was on the losing side of the argument, and I hope my thinking is not just a matter of bad feelings generated by that fact.

BarrelProof (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it is generally understood that the MoS is a guideline, and that local consensus can establish a different outcome for a particular article or subset of articles. I didn't think that this was a blowout in favor of one position or another, but to me the weight of consensus is clear. bd2412 T 18:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I personally still don't get it. What's normal about writing "she was injured in the July 3, 2013, tornado outbreak"? Who puts a comma? I believe the difference is that MOS:BADDATEFORMAT is talking about dates as nouns but here it is acting as an adjective. "On July 3, 2013, there was a tornado..." Everyone likes that. I've never seen (to my recollection) a comma placed after a year in a date that is being used as an adjective. I will post on the MOS talk page. Red Slash 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How to fix links affected by an article move[edit]

Hello BD2412. Do you know if there's a script or bot that could help with this? Due to an August 2013 move, there are more than 500 links to Newfoundland (island) that ought to be changed to Newfoundland. Do people normally do a bot request for this, or just wait for something to happen automatically? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Where the previous title redirects to the current title, this is usually not considered something that needs "fixing" at all, since a reader following the link will arrive at the right page. bd2412 T 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Trademark Policy Discussion[edit]

Hi BD2412,

I noticed that you've contributed to the trademark article on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has just released a draft trademark policy for consultation with the Wikimedia community. The purpose of the new draft is to facilitate permissive use of the Wikimedia trademarks for the community while preserving protection of the marks.

I thought that you may have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion, given your interest in trademark law. I would like to personally invite you to review the new draft and contribute any comments you may have. We plan to keep the discussion open for two months and incorporate the feedback into the final trademark policy. We hope this new version of the policy will make it easier for community members to use the logos to encourage Wikipedia editing.


DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


I'd move it now off of your subpage and directly to article space, personally, but you should probably have the honors. Great idea, good job, wonderful execution. Red Slash 00:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! bd2412 T 00:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the gift of consolation, needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong button?[edit]

I'm not sure which level of protection you intended to place, semi- or full-, but I assume you didn't mean to apply template protection? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Something like that? This redirect has a large number of incoming links, and consensus has previously been established as to its target, but editors still come along from time to time and change it without asking about it first. I suppose full admin protection is the best defense against rash action here. bd2412 T 14:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Waimakariri District[edit]

Do you want to join WikiProject Waimakariri District? If so, please add your name to the proposal page.

Thanks, but that is way outside of my zone of expertise. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Full circle ringing[edit]

Hi, I note your WP:DABCONCEPT tag, but wonder whether WP:DABNOT might apply; the couple of lines are basically a dictionary definition. Details of the suspension methods, the wheels and other fittings vary between the examples quoted and therefore might be more properly teated at the detail articles. Let me know what you think, and if you're still sure about DABCONCEPT I'll try and expand it a little over the next few days. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Although specific details of different types might justify individual articles, the overall concept is not ambiguous, and can be covered in an article. In short, these terms are not ambiguous items that happen to share the same name; they are different types of the same general concept. bd2412 T 17:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done (First attempt at least.) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! bd2412 T 20:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal relationship skills[edit]

Hi, I see that you had a few views on this article some years ago. It is now too essay-like, some say. Others wish to keep it. Going, going... gone? Articles for discussiondeletion link here >> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationship skills. Any article can benefit from feedback. I have never seen an essay which has a notable academic citation for every sentence. ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosophertalkcontribs 01:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Thanks for attending to the history! --evrik (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Redirect deletion[edit]

Hi can you explain why you deleted Marina Rodina with the reason "redirect to disambiguation page with no apparent solution"? And also which policy this was done under.--Sinistrial (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I restored the redirect, but I am unable to restore the damage to your reputation. If you take this to a discussion to get it deleted, I can copy and paste the sources I provided before. Since I provided those in 2010, there are actually even more sources available to prove the connection to the subject. So in the interest of your reputation, I suggest you don't bother.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is no need for me to propose the deletion of this redirect, as this has already been proposed. As for my reputation, don't fret about it. I will stand on my eight years as an admin and 460,000 edits, covering every subject matter area in the compendium. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Bass guitar[edit]

Hi! Just thought I'd let you know that the correct disambiguation for bass is bass guitar, not bass (guitar). I've fixed up your edit to Kerim "Krimh" Lechner to point to the correct article. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Bass (guitar) redirects to Bass guitar, and as such is an improvement over the link to the disambiguation page. Informally, it lets me keep track of how many links to Bass guitar were fixed from disambiguation links. bd2412 T 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Shi Tao[edit]

Hi. Could you please check your Moves regarding Talk:Shi Tao, since it presently consists of a redirect to itself? Thanks, It Is Me Here t / c 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Now Commons to be changed[edit]

Hey. You participated in the move discussion for 'Already moved to Commons'. Since I closed that with a move to a new name, I'm wondering if I should just go ahead and modify {{Now commons}}. That seems to be the main place where 'Already moved to Commons' was referred to. The template formerly known as {{Already moved to Commons}} is now to be known as {{Incomplete move to Commons}}. The change has already been entered at the sandbox for Now Commons. Unclear to me what I might break by changing a widely-used template, so just tell me if it raises any concerns, or if there is some test I should run first. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular answer for this; I have moved templates before without those sorts of complications arising, since the redirects will continue to function. bd2412 T 15:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

disambiguation contest[edit]

Hey, thanks for posting on my talk page about the Nov disambiguation contest. However, unfortunately I didn't get my message in time to participate (I don't jump on here that often), but know that I appreciate you having the contest and challenging others to participate and get the wiki articles updated (and accurate)! Hope you have another contest again in the future too. Zul32 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sure we will, thanks. bd2412 T 21:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm not too hopeful of Pass a Method discussing the disputed content - I have started two talk page discussions, but Pass a Method kept adding the material back in. An RfC would be really helpful, though there were two distinct issues. But either way, I will step back. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. At this point, the issue needs to be resolved by discussion before either of you make any further changes. I note that the article is now at the state that it was before the dispute began, and should stay that way until it is settled. bd2412 T 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
That's what I think, but if Pass a Method thinks differently, I promise not to revert. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft pages for RPG bios[edit]

Hey BD2412, hope all is well with you. :) I have been hard at work on bios of RPG industry people, restoring deleted ones, sourcing existing ones, and starting new ones. Please take a look at what I have been doing with the new draft pages feature - any help you can give there may push these closing to being articles once more. :) BOZ (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey BD2412,

On a somewhat related topic, I have seen a few IP editors posting that Anthony J. Bryant has passed away, but the best I have seen so far is Facebook posts and forums as sources. Can you help me keep an eye on this one, and if possible add any better sources to this one in case what they are saying is true? BOZ (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found anything either. bd2412 T 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tax Charts[edit]

BD2412, you commented on one of the Tax Charts in the Talk:Taxation in the United States‎ discussion. I was wondering if you could further review the discussion and provide your opinion. I'm at a point where I think we've move beyond anything constructive for what seems to be a pattern of WP:PUSH and we're starting to see an edit war. I don't want to go into my thoughts on the editor as I don't want to bias your judgement, but I'm at risk of becoming uncivil and could use third party review. Morphh (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion about recent edit[edit]

Hi BD2412! To go along with this edit, should you also update the date/time in your sig? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it. I don't think it matters, really, as long as there is progress being made with those links. bd2412 T 04:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Shared IP tags[edit]

In this edit you nuked the shared IP ownership tag as well as the prior block n warnings. Please be more careful with those... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I did so intentionally. IP ownership information is as transitory as anything else. We have no way of knowing that the block of IP addresses has not been reassigned without checking all of them, and where an IP address has produced no edits in four years (two years since the expiration of the last block), there is no point to maintaining any information of that sort on the page. bd2412 T 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The check takes ten seconds, with the handy "Whois" link at the bottom of their contribs. I understand the point of cleaning up truly stale IP warnings, but the ownership remains the same for the IP address... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Multiply that ten seconds by the tens of thousands of stale IP talk pages, and it ceases to be a trivial concern. bd2412 T 16:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but...[edit]

If you want to disambiguate a link, like you did from Coat of arms of the London Borough of Camden, please make sure the new link goes to the right article. It didn't. I have fixed it now. Thanks for your effort, anyway, and Happy New Year. Arms Jones (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Name Blending[edit]

Sorry for the late response. I'd be glad to see the Name Blending article revived and to do my best to rework it with those new sources.



[1] indicates a topic ban placed on an editor for a specific topic. My query is whether a founder of that group's BLP is also covered by such a topic ban (and where the topic banned article is directly and prominently linked) ? See [2] and a great many article talk page edits where the subject is described in the body of the BLP as "To promote his economic and political ideas, Rothbard joined Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. and Burton Blumert in 1982 to establish the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama." Also [3] about a person who is described as And also numerous talk pages edits on that BLP. [4] another related BLP. [5] another. [6] another. (Stopping at the two week mark -- I suspect there are more if I go back to November 4 for sure). If the topic ban so tightly construed that it lets him edit BLPs about founders and members of the subject he is banned from? If so, fine -- I am not trying to get him into trouble if he has done naught wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The topic ban as discussed by the community related to the specific article, and nothing else. The community is always able to revisit the limitations of any editor's conduct. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
bd2412 is correct. The ban is probably better described as an article ban, not a topic ban. But the community-authorized sanctions gives administraters broad authority at their own discretion to impose sanctions on any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

All Creatures[edit]

Nice work. I was going to leave the disambiguations until I was done, because there will be duplicates (actors played more than one character). - Dudesleeper talk 22:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't too hard. For perhaps 90% of them, the right answer is "Foo pers (actor)". Cheers! bd2412 T 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 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 3377 links in the challenge of December 2013. Rcsprinter (indicate) @ 23:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambig controversy[edit]

You might want to keep an eye on Broadway (New York City) today. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC concerning the article name for Broadway[edit]

Because you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, or related to the subject, please see RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Wilf K. Backhaus[edit]

Hi BD2412,

I noticed that you recently used Requested Moves to get an AFD'ed article back from draft space into article space, so I am trying that here with this subject. You said previously that you would try to help out with RPG related Draft space pages, so I am asking if you can help find any sources for this person. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Similar situation with Draft:Tom Braunlich. BOZ (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
BD2412, if you can help out on either of those, that would be a great place to start. :) BOZ (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find anything on Backhaus that isn't already in the article. I expanded the Braunlich quote a bit, but I can find even less on him, and don't think that what there is adds up to notability. bd2412 T 21:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks for what you were able to do!  :) BOZ (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)