Misplaced Pages

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

Disam contest

Well good. :) But. :) I haven't been in the top 4 in quite some time. So. We'll see. --User:Woohookitty 05:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a great idea and am hoping to participate. Thank you… and HaPpY eDiTiNg! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

January 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 3778 links in the challenge of January 2013. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers. bd2412 T 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Billy King

Im sorry i never sorted the redirect, but why did you delete it. Rather than recreating the page to add the Template:DisambigProject could you please undelete and add the tag removing the redirect, keeps the history which given the move i don't see as a bad thing even though redirects are cheap.Blethering Scot 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. However, please note that talk page redirects resulting from page moves are WP:CSD#G6, and are routinely deleted. Please note, also, that page histories are maintained in order to attribute authorship to those who write the materials that are presented in Misplaced Pages. There is no authorship inherent in a page move. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

BD - I filled out the rest of Fort Fisher and did all of the Battle of Corinth links at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#Disambiguation help needed., but that's about the extent of my knowledge. If no one steps up to do the other ones, I may put my nose to the grindstone and try to figure out what is what, but I'm relatively inexpert at 20th century conflicts. Cdtew (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated. bd2412 T 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Tabitha (given name)

The standard title for given names articles seems to be Name (given name). I am also trying to avoid having the given name page turned into a disambiguation page. The title of the article should be moved back immediately to Tabitha (given name) and the disambiguation page should be separate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First, you are flatly wrong about the standard title. See Category:Given names; the vast majority of pages on given names are at the base page name. Compare also names like Brian, Roger, and Samantha. Second, do you understand that, per WP:MALPLACED, if Tabitha is not a page on the given name, then the disambiguation page must be at the base page name? In any event, there is nothing to disambiguate, period; per MOS:DABNAME, "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages". Since there are no meanings for Tabitha other than as a given name, there is no reason not to conform to the standards of this encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Bookworm857158367#Given_name_stubs. PamD 09:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An unfortunate trend. If this editor persists in pressing his misunderstanding of article-naming policies, a topic ban might be in order. bd2412 T 13:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation

Yes, better wording. I had two drafts from stream of consciousness and tried to make a coherent whole but came in just shy of the mark. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages manuals considered harmful

Hi, thanks for the note on 2-entry DABs. Now I will have to find another sense and start another article, just to save that page. 8-)
However, please ponder about this: "whenever an editor is told to go read a style manual, Misplaced Pages loses another editor."
A couple years ago I analyzed the growth of Misplaced Pages, and it was clear that the editor base has been falling exponentially since 2005-2006. It was steadily losing old editors and failing to recruit new ones. I presume that the trend has not improved. Wikiprojects and talk pages now seem to be deserted dusty halls, feel tempted to write "Hello! Is anybody home?"
To me, the cause of the problem is clear: editing has become forbiddingly hard, even for seasoned editors. The vast number of finnicky rules, and their obsessive enforcement (no matter how gentle) by veteran editors, are a big part of that problem.
If I were you, I would advise every editor, whenever I had a chance, to not read any of the manuals or rules. Instead, editors should just look at other articles, and try to imitate what they see and like, and improve on it if they can.
And if I were top honcho of Misplaced Pages, The first thing I would do is rm -rf wiki/Wikipedia:*. That would go a long way towards saving this project.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rule is reasonable, and I might have done it that way if I had thought more about it. But I was trying to sort out half a dozen articles at the time... (But having a manual page about it? That, I am afraid, does more harm than good...) All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert of change to redirect

Hello. You reverted a change to a redirect. I presumed that edit would have been non-controversial in substance. The redirect, as it stood, did not even direct to a "Thema". In contrast, the diambig that was created as a target included a number of actual Themas, as well as the original target.

You cited WP:MDP.

According to that wikiproject page, I gather that "Thema" should link directly to what is now the "Thema (disambiguation)" page, but should be named "Thema". (As the wp project page says, "This situation is avoidable, as the disambiguation page can exist at Foogle.").

That would be best, I think, as Thema properly refers to a number of articles where Thema is significant in the name of the article: such as Thema (rapper), Thema International Fund, Thema macroscia, Thema psammoxantha, Thema Mundi, Thema protogramma, as well as Thema syneidiseos. That's in addition to the target that you re-created for the phrase, which fails to even have "Thema" in its name -- Theme (Byzantine district).

Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there are a large number of possible meanings is the beginning of the inquiry, not the end of it. As you can see, for example, there are a large number of meanings at George Washington (disambiguation) and Apple (disambiguation), but that does not make these the base page names appropriate for disambiguation. The next question is whether there is a primary topic for the term that can be determined from incoming links, page views, and Google hits for the various meanings. In this case, all of the incoming links appear to relate to the Byzantine district. If you disagree with this assessment, the venue for making such a change is Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, where a request can be made to move the disambiguation page to the undisambiguated title. bd2412 T 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think that there are a large number of titles that use that name, but that the one redirected to does not use the name "Thema", would be of moment. And yes -- whenever we have a redirect that is longstanding the incoming links will point to it. That's no mystery. Anyone creating a link to Thema for another reason will automatically see that it points to the wrong place. Or, if they don't, our bot will tend to remind them. It is self-propagating.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It may be, but it may also represent settled expectations. Since it is incorrect to redirect a base page name to a page with a "Foo (disambiguation)" title, what you are seeking to do here is to effect a page move. The discussion following a page move request will flesh out these issues. I am in the process of bypassing all of the redirects on these pages in case it is, in fact moved. bd2412 T 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. I know that is tedious work, so thanks. I'll wait till the dust clears. Have also added additional themas to the dab page. It is worthy noting, btw, that the target that you reverted to does not attract the most page views of those articles currently on the dab page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

While significant, that too is not the end of the inquiry. Is the "most attractive" article a partial title match for which the word "Thema" alone unlikely to be used? I don't know, but these are things to be brought up in support of a move request. bd2412 T 23:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm really failing to see anything convincing (to me) for creating a link to an article that: a) fails to even have "thema" in its name; and b) has half the page views of another article on the disambig page. That's half the views even with everyone looking for any other "Thema" ending up on its page. The only thing I can imagine you are considering is long-term usage. But I've just brought to AfD and had deleted pages that were marked for notability five years ago. Nobody paid attention. That happens all the time. That, for example, is why long-term usage on wp is not generally a consideration at AfD or similar places. Indeed, the hatnote on this page was long-term unhelpful, as it failed to point to nearly all the other articles now on the disambig page. I really am surprised that you would restore a link under these circumstances. Non-controversial doesn't mean one couldn't make a poor defense for it as the target; it means that looking at the facts, dispassionately, one sees that there is not legitimate reason to link the article to the current target. Such is the case here. We're not even arguing over whether to link the phrase to the article with twice the page views. Just to the disambig page. Clearly, your direct to the current target send most people to something other than the most read article. We don't need to have a community discussion over things that, legitimately, are non-controversial.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As I have said, if you wish to have the disambiguation page moved to the base pagename, make a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. That is the appropriate place for the discussion part of the WP:BRD cycle to be carried out. bd2412 T 02:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I heard that. I apparently didn't make myself clear. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Lancia Thema the "other article on the disambig page" to which you refer? bd2412 T 12:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I only checked a couple, but saw that one had twice the page views of the current target.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have initiated a move discussion at Talk:Thema (disambiguation)#Requested move. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kindness. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for going above and beyond to make sure that at the end of the day, whatever was the correct result would be reached, here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There is one remaining incoming link to that page, on an index of philosophy terms. If you could figure that one out, I would certainly appreciate it. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. There does not appear to be an article on the term at the project, so it is now a redlink.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WP U.S. Supreme Court Cases in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to SCOTUS cases and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit rate,

I'm seeing 6 or 7 entries of you in Recent Changes at a time. I don't know what you think, but many bots don't edit this fast. Command and Conquer Expert! _{review me...} 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fast. bd2412 T 05:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Aqueduct

Hi. Instead of simply marking every instance of "aqueduct" as needing disambiguation, why not actually disaqmbiguate them yourself? Most of the time the meaning is clear, and when it is not immediately so, a small amount of research will give the answer. This would be much more helpful than simply tagging the word and leaving the work for someone else to do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The article split seems somewhat nuanced to me. I will go back through and try to pick some off, but I would leave it to the experts who are likely watching the articles to take the first shot at fixing them. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that the target pages are still under discussion. It is probably best to wait until the dust clears from that process before going about fixing large numbers of links. bd2412 T 22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Give Me Your Hand (Best Song Ever)

Sorry, you can't A7 a song or record. The performer has an article, so A9 would be out too. As it's a single, you could try prod. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Prodded. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Rihanna articles

Sorry for that, but I was really pissed of at the redirect of the article page. Currently this is active. And the real title of the album page should be only 'Good Girl Gone Bad' because it's the most notable of all. So for now you can fix the refs mistake, please. — Tomíca 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, on it now. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through my edit history and reverted the three instances where I made that error. Since it looks like the discussion will resolve the disambiguation links issue, I'll stop this series of fixes now. bd2412 T 17:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks ^.^ — Tomíca 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Bank stress tests

BTW Happy Birthday! Thanks for help on Bank stress tests. There is still some proposed deletion of the stub articles that describe the annual programs but hopefully that can be resolved. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Comprehensive_Capital_Assessment_Review_(CCAR)

I saw your strong background in law and wanted to put in a plug for a law topic upgrade and perhaps an area that could capture your intellectual imagination?

• Regulatory capture in general.
• Regulatory_capture#American_examples see specifically: CFTC, Federal reserve, OCC, SEC sections
• Example legal research article on deep capture ]. I don't have a legal background and all the stuff on legal theory was like visiting the land of Oz to me. However fascinating!
• example of regulatory capture (not much regulatory response) 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss
  • however as of yesterday Senate Investigations ] may at least conduct hearings? ] That group does some nice investigative work ]. I took a look at that Wall Street report and noted 11 Senators, Staff Director, Chief Counsel, Chief Investigator, 4 law clerks, a research clerk, 5 Counselors, Detailees from DOJ, GAO, ICE, SEC; professional staff, consultants, numerous senator's staff, chief and senior investigators, tens of thousands of pages of documents, etc. yet ultimately, not a lot of actual regulatory action?
• Elizabeth Warren came out swinging a few days ago ]

Rick (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm an IP lawyer - I avoid banking law like the plague! Well, perhaps not quite that much. bd2412 T 03:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Intellectual Property can't (for the most part) be economically protected. I remember when Corning sued Sumitomo over blatant violation of their IP rights to single mode optical fibers. During the march to a slow and expensive, but surely thought to be "just and equitable solution" in a clear cut case, Sumitomo managed to successfully ex-appropriate via deposition every last one of Corning's top scientists daily detailed notebooks, complete with the results of years of incredibly expensive research. As Sumitomo paid their paltry fines on the IP infringement they snickered, having obtained an incredible treasure trove of Corning's expensive research for pennies on the dollar.

Take a look at that stuff on Regulatory Capture, Posner and the article on Deep Capture. It all applies just as well to USPTO functioning "for the public good" as it does to banking. When the system is radically broken it needs to be fixed. Rick (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Satellite Direct disambiguation page deletion, please block Satellite Direct TV article from possible creation.

I know that having information about a topic on a disambiguation page is not a very common practice, however I felt that there should be something in Misplaced Pages about the Satellite Direct TV marketers. Since you apparently feel otherwise, that is okay, but could you please block the Satellite Direct TV article from possible re-creation? I do not want to see those marketers attempting to use Misplaced Pages for their advertising purposes again. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason we don't have information about topics on disambig pages is that disambig pages are only navigational aids. Think of a disambig page like the index of a textbook. You wouldn't expect to see anything substantive there, just the pages where things can be found in the book itself. However, it may be that there is another article on the topic that should mention something about the company in question here. bd2412 T 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, could you please reset the block against the creation of a Satellite Direct TV page? I had asked another administrator to unblock it so I could create an article, but then I realized that the company was too scuzzy to deserve a regular article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice please

Avoiding Edit wars...

Sirs: I wish to dearly avoid an edit war. There is an article that has one source, and I am looking for other sources, as I have read the other source, and seen the other source, neither of which I can document now, but easily more noteworthy than the current source. ( the primary source is dead, but it has been documented twice outside the web, ( unfortunately before I was born )).

I made the changes, but was reverted without discussion or notice.

Article: Light-Foot. Source: Time Life Books on computers. Source: Computer History Museum.

Would you suggest, I got to the museum, take a picture of the wire ( that predates me. ), and post it? Would that be original research?

The email I got back from the museum: "Oh those idiots? The wouldn't know the truth if it was drilling into their thick skulls.", personal email.

What to do next? I reverted my changes, then re-reverted them, so the page is as as stands. 67.180.156.92 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk)

Happy Anniversary

Hi BD2412. Congratualtions on making it to the 8 year mark. Very few Wikipedians have been here this long. The community and the project are very lucky to have dedicated editors such as yourself and I thank you for all the time and effort you have donated to the project. Your efforts benefit all of humanity and you and your family should be very proud of this accomplishment. Thank you. 64.40.54.147 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sex Positive

Thanks for your note about the disambiguation and you prefering to keep Sex Positive for the film. I tried to revert to what you say, but couldn't achieve the reversal for some reason myself either. But I have no opposition if you want to make Sex Positive film entry the main and you know your way around. We can always make Sex Positive (disambiguation) and keep the main Sex Positive for the gripping documentary. But you should know I have done huge improvements for all those who visit the page now. This is what we had on 19 February 2013 before I intervened: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_Positive_(film)&diff=528140238&oldid=527881460 This is what we have now after my edits of 20 February http://en.wikipedia.org/Sex_Positive_(film) I am so glad about it. I was watching the film just being fascinated and blown away by this Berkowitz guy.... and I was passing the changes while following the film... werldwayd (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Per barnstar definition. For sustained daily tedious but needed admin tasks. Respectfully. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, my friend. bd2412 T 02:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Can you please take a look at MRSA? Someone has fixed all the incoming links, but I'm sure this fairly common term will continue to attract more links if it remains as a dab page. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the statistics, I have proposed a move and redirect. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

High water mark

Great job on this article; it's worlds better than the shabby dab that was there before. Keep up the good work! --BDD (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 02:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, BD2412. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Misplaced Pages cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000 14:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

RadioFan (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Trot

Mike Cline reversed his close of your move request. We have at least a 4:2 or better vote, but maybe need more supports. Just an FYI that it's still open. Montanabw 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion: Misplaced Pages and legislative data

Hi BD2412, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Misplaced Pages and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Misplaced Pages and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill  13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Soviet?

Just a heads up: you might want to double check the edit summary used here and elsewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops - yeah, that one is from the last round of these. bd2412 T 04:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Immunity (reality television) for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Immunity (reality television) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AldezD (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Misplaced Pages entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

LittleWink (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to assist with "fixing" some syntax in Template:Disambiguation?

I was looking at Template:Disambiguation and Template:Disambiguation/doc a little while ago, and I found an issue that might have been accidentally caused by a category deletion in conjuction with the move discussed/suggested by you at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive 37#Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages and Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages; per the doc, and as proven on the article Fluor, the {{Disambiguation|molform}} tag puts the tagged article into the non-existent Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages. Unfortunately, I am both not very versed in how to find out how this link is happening in the source code for Template:Disambiguation, nor can I edit this template since I am not an administrator. Would you be able to take a look at Template:Disambiguation and see if the syntax causing that tag to link to Category:Molecular formula disambiguation pages could be removed? Steel1943 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Disregard. Seems I shall post this as an edit request on Template:Disambiguation itself then. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation of Charm on English Misplaced Pages!?!

Hi Esteemed BD2412: I have just noticed a post from you on my Talk page saying that User:Charm has been usurped at "English Misplaced Pages". Based on what I see here, I assume you meant to tell me the account was usurped on the French Misplaced Pages? I shouldn't be worried about someone else trying to usurp on English Misplaced Pages, right? Charm ©† 21:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, actually it's English Wikiquote! bd2412 T 01:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock etc.

Hi BD2412, thanks for that proposal to unblock Kalki. I really think unblocking him is the only sane thing to do. I got a bit carried away, and I realize that most of my comments on that page were unnecessarily counterproductive (sorry for that) hence I will try to refrain from making further remarks there. I really wish your proposal to be successful. Best regards, DanielTom (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

@BD2412: It is very much to your credit that you are willing to give Kalki a second chance. If K. is unblocked, I certainly hope that you never have reason to regret it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you, if I were given any such reason, I would not hesitate to reimpose the block with a note that the generous provision of a second chance had been provided and misused. However, I am reasonably confident that Kalki, despite his eccentricities, would behave. bd2412 T 04:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ilario Antoniazzi

Dear BD2412, good morning! I onlny would like thank you for the help you gave me in this page I made yesterday.

I'm not native English speaker, and I would like to know if I can ask your help again for the future. I promise: 1-2 help request each month, ok?

Have a nice day and thank you again

Rex Momo (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

Per an AN discussion you started, I have unblocked that user. You may want to watchlist User talk:Kalki and look in on his contribs from time to time, but that's up to you. — Ched :  ?  21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, already watchlisted and under watchful eyes. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. You've been an admin. a lot longer than I, so I kinda figured you had - just covering my own backside. :-) — Ched :  ?  21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For getting Kalki unblocked!!! DanielTom (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

soFLY & Nius move discussion

Hi BD2412,

I have a question for you, just to understand how it works. How come someone can move a page with no consensus asked or else, and it needs a consensus to move it back to the real name ? I just don't get it. And why does it need a consensus when the official and only name used by the artists is soFLY & Nius and not SoFly and Nius ?

Thank you, Koffey (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The rule is set forth at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trademarks. It is fine to move a nonconforming page to a title that conforms with the rule; where the rule is to be overridden, consensus is needed. bd2412 T 11:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill  18:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mapping the Global Economy

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

You tagged a page for merge a while back at Health department - there are now two separate discussions that would welcome your input. (1) whether we should still do the merge (no dissenting views yet on this, so seems to be yes), and (2) whether we should rename the article. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill  20:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Article move

Hi, Self promotion needs moving to Self-promotion for the correct spelling. Can you sort that out? cheers, Rd232 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CYCLE 16 Contestants

Wait? AzMarie? how about in Cycle 16 made a page for Alexandria Everett or Hannah Jones too :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTPMF (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't say I know what you're referring to. bd2412 T 03:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Chet Holifield Building

Hi there, I ended up on the Chet Holifield Federal Building page and noticed that it was listed as a courthouse of the Southern District of California. As far as I can tell, it's neither a courthouse nor in the S.D. Cal. jurisdiction, so I removed the reference. It looks like you created the page and you certainly have a lot more experience/clout around here than I do, so I wanted to give you a heads up. (As a very occasional editor, I also wanted to say thanks for the hard work you guys do.) Swsail (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll look into it. Usually, my information comes from the GSA or the FJC. bd2412 T 11:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at every possible source, you are absolutely right. This building has never been designated to serve as a federal courthouse. There is, of course, always a chance that some court proceedings were conducted there in a pinch, but I have not found even that. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Looks like I reverted you this morning. I can only guess I managed to press rollback whilst editing on my iPod. Sorry! Bevo74 (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. You're a good editor, so I figured it must be something like that. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bevo74 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

EEOC members' notability?

What is your feeling on (Senate-confirmed) members of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? Are they inherently notable, do you think? I don't know if consensus ever has been reached on this subject? Curious what your thoughts are before I go and create a page or pages that might be at risk of being deleted. Thanks! Jarvishunt (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that I would say they are inherently notable. They are appointed for relatively short terms (five years, as compared to fifteen for Federal Claims judges, and lifetime appointments for Article III judges). We could start with an article listing all who have served and providing the dates of service, appointing presidents, senate votes, and so forth, and then determine who on that list merits an article for other reasons. I suspect that it will be relatively easy to find that EEOC appointees either were previously well-published academics, or became such after serving. bd2412 T 23:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)