Misplaced Pages

Status: Active. bd2412 T

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 Misplaced Pages Community. BD2412

Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind:

1. I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek").
2. It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page.

Cheers! BD2412

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):

001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015-016

017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030-031-032

033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045-046-047-048

049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057-058-059-060-061

Corrupted notice

I got a corrupted ping from you marked 16 hours ago, but with a link to "no page". Any idea what you might have been doing so that I can write a bug report?—Kww(talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that this is because I was archiving drafts in my userspace, and ended up overwriting my talk page, which I then restored. (In fact, it's about time that I archive this page again - usually I aim for about 50k per archive). bd2412 T 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi BD2412, regarding your decline to delete that article, I asked for it to be deleted because I created it by mistake when I tried to tag the Gauge Vector-Tensor gravity article to be merged into Modified Newtonian dynamics. I typed a letter capitalized (the 'd' in dynamics) and apparently that created a whole new article (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), which is the one I tagged for deletion. I just removed the merge tag from this last article so now it redirects to the correct one. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm new to TW. Cheers. Gaba 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine - that sort of thing happens all the time, even to experienced users. bd2412 T 19:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Now we know why we are parties

The drafting admin is proposing that we violated BLP as a "finding of fact".—Kww(talk) 06:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... reasonable doubt

Greetings BD2412. I'm in the process of preparing an AN/I regarding possible trolling, etc., and as part of my "investigation", am following up a couple of loose ends. I noticed that back in 2005 you were in contact with a user who seems to have retired. While it is, admittedly, a long shot, I'd like to know if you had any doubt as to said user's response and bona fides. Sorry to hassle you, but this stuff happens. --Technopat (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I never had any reason to doubt that claim. There is a certain ebb and flow to thinking like a lawyer that is generally obtained through years of law school and years of practice. This editor sounded like he had that. bd2412 T 16:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. --Technopat (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

National Jiaotong University

Hi. I saw the note you got from MadmanBot, archived to User:BD2412/Fifteenth dated archive#National Jiaotong University. I made a dummy edit and placed {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 14:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Brevity in RM discussions

I notice here you added what you called "standard header instructions". Where did you get that text from? I note that Misplaced Pages:Requested moves doesn't include the word "brief" anywhere. StAnselm (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I must admit, I copied that text from some discussion so long ago that I don't remember specifically where it came from. It's not my invention, though. bd2412 T 11:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the tip about notifying Wikiprojects. I wasn't sure it wouldn't be considered canvassing, so I thought it best to ask for admin input. :b
More generally, thank you for consistently being a calm voice on the many pages the dispute has spread to. I'm surprised it took as long as it did to wear you down... I'm going to need a wikibreak myself soon. -sche (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not worn down, though - I've just done everything useful for me to do with respect to this matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

		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 3572 links in the challenge of September 2013. Rcsprinter (cackle) @ 21:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 22:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mike_Reid_(actor)

Hi - would you mind explaining your close here, especially about there being a clear majority of the subset who wanted it moved, to move it to "(actor)"? My tally shows the following:

• In ictu oculi (nom): "Mike Reid" 1st choice; "Mike Reid (actor)" 2nd choice
• Taylor Trescott: "Mike Reid"
• 5 albert square: "Mike Reid (entertainer)" (status quo)
• anemone projectors: "Mike Reid (actor)"
• Wbm1058: "Mike Reid (actor)" (apparently giving up on "Mike Reid (x entertainer)", although unclear on that point)
• Dohn joe (me): "Mike Reid" 1st choice; "Mike Reid (x entertainer)" 2nd choice
• Super Mario Man: "Mike Reid" 1st choice; "Mike Reid (actor)" 2nd choice

So it looks like "Mike Reid" was the first or only choice of 4 of the seven participants (which is also four of the six who wanted it moved). Only two had "Mike Reid (actor)" as a first choice, with two having it as a second choice. My math shows a "clear majority" in favor of "Mike Reid", don't you think? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look here, but I'm still confused. Your new rationale says that there was no consensus to move the dab page. But there were four people in favor of just that - as a first choice, and with policy-based support. Isn't that a stronger consensus than the 2+2 split for "(actor)"? Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate questions inherent in this multimove: Should "Mike Reid (entertainer)" be renamed, and should "Mike Reid" be renamed. As to the first issue, six out of seven editors supported moving the page away from "Mike Reid (entertainer)", a clear consensus; but as to the second issue, only four out of seven supported an option wherein "Mike Reid" would be moved; a slim majority, but not a consensus. Note also that Taylor Trescott's rationale was "per nom", which references the nomination itself, which in turn contemplates "Mike Reid (actor)" as a second choice. With a consensus in favor of moving "Mike Reid (entertainer)", but no consensus in favor of moving "Mike Reid", the next option in line is "Mike Reid (actor)". The only editor who unambiguously appears to be flatly opposed to that move is 5 albert square. bd2412 T 18:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But you've still chosen the second-most-favored option. First, I don't think you can assign "(actor)" as Taylor Trescott's second choice. They clearly said just "Support move to Mike Reid per nom" - no mention of a second choice. I also think that in this case, it's important to note that anemone projectors changed their vote after the "Mike Reid (American football)" stats were shown, but before the total evidence of PRIMARYTOPIC was presented. Would it be worthwhile/kosher to ask them if they considered that new evidence? That could change the calculus here. Dohn joe (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider "(actor)" to be Taylor Trescott's second choice so much as I consider his !vote to be a non-!vote on the "(actor)" issue. However, even putting that vote aside, it is clear that the page could not stay at "Mike Reid (entertainer)", and also that "Mike Reid" could not be moved. bd2412 T 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

So, I went ahead and talked to anemone projectors and we had a nice discussion about it here. Have a read and see if that impacts your thinking on the topic. Thanks again, by the way, for your thoughtful explanations throughout - I greatly appreciate that. Dohn joe (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest initiating another move request in a month or so. bd2412 T 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the close on that. Most excellent job of reading consensus on a tricky one. I'm a bit surprised there wasn't more interest in Mike Reid (comedian), given that the only template he was in is {{Comics who appeared on "The Comedians"}}. I'd support Mike Reid (actor and comedian) as well, but think I'll defer to the Brits here on that one. I'd also prefer something like Mike Reid (defensive lineman and singer), but what we have now works good enough. Just seems a bit odd to see a (singer) in those NFL categories, readers might click on that to see if we've made a categorization error! Wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Andranik

Good point on Andranik (given name). I missed that there was no specific information about the name at Napoleon (disambiguation), and given the number of people listed there, am surprised that we don't have anything about that name! Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 03:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

...but wikt:Napoleon does have an etymology of the name, I just put a Wiktionary link on Napoleon (disambiguation). Not sure I get that adding a simple etymology to the "lead" of that dab would destroy it as a dab, but if that's consensus... Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are many people with the name, Napoleon, and a substantial explanation of where the name comes from, then it can't hurt to have a separate Napoleon (name) page. bd2412 T 13:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

Thanks for the note. I do plan on participating, but I have not had the necessary time to read the arguments in sufficient detail yet. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a few days left in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I was trying to ignore it, but I'll get there tomorrow. I suspect it's going to be like trying to engage mating porcupines, probably POINTs in all directions. htom (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind, we are all volunteers here. You may wish to participate, but by no means are you required to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about this. It is one of the depressing features of Misplaced Pages that when the community has discussed an issue and made a decision, a group of people work together to put the decision aside. My feeling is that there is no point in normal people contributing. We will be ignored. One of the places the previous discussion was advertised was a group of people who were particularly likely to promote the change, because Manning is one of them. It is dangerous going up against such organised special-interest groups.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that your interpretation is entirely wrong. The community failed to reach a decision in the last discussion, largely because of the procedural issues surrounding the initial set of moves. Many of the people who opposed the initial move indicated that the issue should be raised again in some comparatively short period of time. That is precisely why a new discussion has been initiated. Many of the people who opposed the initial move are supporting the current move request based on changes in coverage by reliable sources in the interim, as is permitted by longstanding policy at WP:TITLE. bd2412 T 19:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

THANKS BD !

Many thanks for helping out in the editing of the Luis González Bravo page. Cheers. SpanishChapters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification

Thank you for notifying me of the current discussion on the renaming issue for the Bradly Manning article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disamb

I agree, but I didn't want to split too many hairs over the page format. Star Trek is far more than a set index in appearance and function. I do not want to pose a risk to these pages that have long standing consensus and adequate coverage of the topic in the undecided arena of PTOPIC and DISAMB. Star Wars does two in the same scope and its much more confusing as a result. Though interesting with Indiana Jones and such, I did not realize that the current usage varies so widely. A very good point you made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

What a pleasant surprise; I'm truly honoured. I thought it was a bit of a leap from ancient China to the Cold War. There may be more to come if I get time - both Germany and the Soviet Union used multiple launchers in WWII. Alansplodge (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Misplaced Pages and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill  02:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago

Hi - would you please restore the Doctor Zhivago special redirects? They're there for a reason. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Whose reason? Has there been a community consensus to create these? How "temporary" do you intend them to be? bd2412 T 11:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Since you seem to have fully protected this page, you may wish to remove the template at the very top, the "not a vote" template, which begins "If you came here because someone asked you too..." This template goes on to invite the reader to participate in the discussion. However, with the discussion "closed", the reader is no longer invited to participate. Therefore, this template should be removed, and I can't do it. I guess any admin can, but since you protected the page, you should probably be the one to make this edit. Neutron (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Done. bd2412 T 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that instead of __NOTOC__, you put __TOC__ in an appropriate location so that we still have the TOC to help us navigate such a huge page? – Smyth\ 21:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Animals of Farthing Wood (book series)

Can you merge this article into The Animals of Farthing Wood? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Carlos-Smith.jpg

You were mentioned at WP:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg Trackinfo (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. bd2412 T 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Please do not edit closed discussions. They are boxed and have a statement in boldface saying not to do so, because they need to remain as a record of what was there when the discussion was closed. If you have mistakenly edited any others than Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Powell, please go back and revert yourself. If you feel disambiguating after the fact is that important, create a talk-page for the closed template and note the correction there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have now indicated on the template talk page, the reason that the "Upstairs, Downstairs" link on this page needs to be disambiguated is that the page to which it pointed at the time the discussion occurred has been moved, and therefore the link no longer accurately represents the target page referenced during the discussion.

Thanks for making the point there. I've been reverted too often after taking too long to compose a thought only to find that the discussion is now boxed up, to believe that bolding is anything but serious. For good or ill, that's what it was when it was closed; and it's not as if it's an article, which could mislead a reader. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Because the link leads to a disambiguation page which lists more than one television show, a reader would not necessarily know which one was inspired by the book. Before the article on the 1971 TV series was changed, a reader clicking on the link would have been taken to the correct title. After the change, the reader will not know which title is correct. Although it may not be too difficult to figure out in this case, there are many instances where it is much harder to determine which disambiguation target was initially intended. Therefore, we routinely correct links to moved pages, even in "closed" discussions. bd2412 T 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We do? I really have the opposite impression. Particularly because closed discussions by their very nature are not in article space; they're not pages directed at readers, and are likely to provide far greater sources of puzzlement than a link going to a DAB page or even to the wrong thing. Is there a place where one of us could ask for it to be clarified whether this is an exception to closure, or can you point me to a place where it's been stated as policy? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It may not be written down anywhere, but it has been the practice of this site for as long as I have been here. Also, your statement that "in retrospect it was already a link to a DAB page" is incorrect. This link did not become a disambiguation link until September 2013. Please revert your edit accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I assumed we had been in the wrong back when we had the DYK nomination discussion; I didn't think to check for a move. Echo informed me of the discussion you opened and I have expressed my viewpoint concerning policy and practice there. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering what took you so long. bd2412 T 05:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to sleep sometimes '-) Now on break at work. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Economics discussion

If I recall, you have a good economics background. I'm wondering if you or perhaps other editors that you know from this field would add additional discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Progressiveness_versus_amount_of_tax. The insertion of the material in several articles has been a point of contention for the past year and it's becoming disruptive. We're starting to go in circles and I think we probably need some fresh voices / eyes on the matter to form a proper consensus as to the best way to address it. Thanks Morphh 13:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not my field actually. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Misplaced Pages, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Misplaced Pages:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation)

Ladies and gents! The disambiguation page is now undeleted as a result of the recent deletion review. Therefore, I invite you to particapte in the move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fast and Furious

Pardon me, but would you like to re-merge the page into The Fast and the Furious, or are both still grammatically apart? --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago dabpage

Can you convert this page to a set index? I would love to see you try without changing the title. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

I know I can easily convert this into set index, but I can't do the way you have done without knowing the right tables and the right colors. --George Ho (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to it this weekend. In the meantime, I'm going to create a separate set index identifier for media. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen you refining it yet. Can you do so soon? --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

greetings

From Perth (sic)

Perhaps you can talk me around this one.

There is no such thing as Perth, Australia -= it does not exist in any sens of the word regardless if wikipedia tells you so, and it has nothing to do with primacy, just common sense.

There is Perth, Western Australia which a bunch of editors came a cropper/resulted inblood on the floor, and as result we have the terrible misnomer of Perth, which makes wikipedia look very very dumb.

So we have Perth, Australia - so why do you so feel so comfortable doing the revert? It would be appreciated if you can show me the error of my ways, as long as you do not come from Perth, Scotland... cheers.

satusuro 14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is a place called Perth, which is the primary meaning of the term. It happens to be in Australia; hence, when someone says "Perth in Australia" they are probably referring to Perth, just as someone referring to "Hollywood in the United States" they are probably referring to Hollywood in California, and not any of a number of other U.S. places called Hollywood. Perth, Australia is just shorthand for "Perth in Australia", and although there may be other places in Australia called Perth, this one is probably the one intended by just about anyone who says "Perth, Australia". bd2412 T 14:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• A usual suspect who seems to own the disambig subject has responded equally by a silent revert, in a separate action, oh well.

I accept your explanation, of your revert, even if I disagree with it, on behalf of the reader on the terms of an existing policy. No further comment at this stage. satusuro 14:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss.

Design death gave his reasoning about Dr. Seuss here. You might need to respond there if you disagree. Jhenderson 18:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have responded. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested RM closes

Can you close these four requested moved? Talk:Onda (disambiguation), Talk:Pinet, Talk:Arce, Talk:Castejón. Regards and thanks. --Vivaelcelta {talk  · contributions} 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I weighed in on the outcomes, I think it would be better for an uninvolved admin to close the discussions. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter

The most belated congratulations imaginable

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. 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 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

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

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

ANI Thread Closure

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages. I would just as soon go ahead with the entire list. bd2412 T 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:EUTooManyStars.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EUTooManyStars.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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

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

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? Misplaced Pages 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

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

In 2011, to implant Misplaced Pages 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)

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  13:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hullo. Yeah, see, I only translated the article from the German Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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

I've nominated Bangerz for retargeting at Misplaced Pages: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)

Persia

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)

sockpuppet

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

Can you submit this to Misplaced Pages: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 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 23:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"BS"

I'm very concerned about this incident of counterproductive behavior when discussing an article under sanctions. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Another editor brought up the same issue directly with Bink; his response was to delete it dismissively. MilesMoney (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding a wiki deletion

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:2005

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 192.118.64.29 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

milesmoney

Does this edit violate the MilesMoney topic ban on LVMI? (With a BLP of a member of the LVMI?) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gary_North_(economist)&curid=12645&diff=581431302&oldid=581429969 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)