You did a couple bad defaultsorts in AWB. For one, Pinkard & Bowden somehow ended up defaultsorted to "Bowden, Pinkard &," and Big & Rich to "Rich, Big &." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No idea how that happened - that's something new in the AWB autofix setup of which I was not aware! bd2412T 23:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
NGE Question
BD2412 - I thought I posted a question here? I know you archive constantly, but I just posted it less than two hours ago... perhaps I'm jumping the gun and you are drafting a response (or maybe I didn't save my question to your talk page, but just exited).
I'm curious as to what's going to happen to articles that are more substantive on Wikipedia as opposed to there NGE corresponding page. In other words, will the NGE articles override and whipe out existing Wikipedia data? Merger of the two articles was mentioned, but what does that entail? In some cases what's on Wikipedia is broader and more in depth than what's on NGE.
If this is not something you care to discuss, could you please direct me to the correct person. I'm very interested in how article content will be merged. For example, if Emory has a huge historical section on Wiki and the NGE article is shorter, with less history, would the NGE info. be the main info. on the new merged Wiki page with, perhaps, a link to the longer (original Wiki) info. - say on an attached page? Does this make sense? Thanks for responding. I look forward to your response. Carsonmc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC).
I think you posted that on the WikiProject Georgia page - I answered there. Cheers! bd2412T 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. It's been a long day. How do I get to that page to read your answer? I typed in WikiProject Georgia, but it pulled up nothing. I forgot how I got there originally. Carsonmc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC).
I'm an idiot. Found it. Thanks for all you do. You are quite busy. Carsonmc (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
We are all idiots at least once per day, I think. Cheers! bd2412T 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Lindburgh linking et al.
Hi, there's an issue going on about the overlinking at this article. See talk page. It involves, of course, the other "test" articles from the Georgia Encyclopedia, too. Tony(talk) 12:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Redirects from "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo", a disambiguation page.
Looking at the
WP:BRFA process, I think we need to have some discussion on WikiProject Disambiguation to make sure there is a consensus to add the template to all those pages. My personal belief is that there probably is, but on the other hand the {{R to disambiguation page}} template has generated a lot of confusion in the past and I think it would be best to have some explicit discussion of this that I can point the bot approval gnomes to. --R'n'B (call me
Russ) 21:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm fine with that. bd2412T 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Allegations
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I totally disagree with your addition to the Orlva article, do you really agree the addition to the lede?
It is not only that, I dispute it all, you yourself say it is poorly claimed and it should not be asserted like that so weakly cited in a BLP. very poor indeed and what worthwhile value do you think is it to the reader, an unnamed person from an unnamed place says Orlova was a stripper at my unnamed club. Utter rubbish. Have you got any other sources to support these controversial claims.
This conversation has been moved to the article's talk page. It is closed here. bd2412T 16:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Removal DoD SNAFU, Backside Flag and DoD Quiet Procurement to avoid conflicts with proposed Anti-Flag Burning Amendments
Care to elaborate on why persist in deleting articles that relate to the
Flag Burning Amendment. I am wondering why evidence such a DoD photos and publications as well as links to relevant Wikipedia Articles of Backside Flags
do not qualify? It's out there. Get used to it. What Standard for Secret practices of government must apply? Would you prefer we litigate to buttress established common knowledge from DoD uniforms? I would like to site as many references as possible, your deleting the article demonstrates open bias. Would you mind finding additional US Military Photos of this practice?
If it is common knowledge that the reason for the adoption of the design is to avoid potential effects of a flag desecration amendment, then you will have no difficulty providing reliable sources supporting that point. bd2412T 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
Chatty?
)babylarm 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The subject is a nominee by the President of the United States for a court just below the United States Supreme Court. Inherently notable. bd2412T 23:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I disagree with you. If his nomination is confirmed, then he would be notable. But suppose it is not and he never does anything else of notable interest. He is then another one-event person. Being a judge on a circuit court of appeal is only barely notable if that's the only fact about him. Being nominated is not. If an AfD appears... Tb (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm amazed, frankly, that you think "being a judge on a circuit court of appeal is only barely notable". Are you aware that these offices are appointed by the President, confirmed by the United States Senate, and are for life, and that every single federal appellate court hears and decides thousands of cases every year determining the propriety of awards amounting to billions of dollars, and in many cases, matters of life and death in criminal cases? I note also that DuMont has argued 18 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, which is a substantial number for any attorney, and has been involved in much high-profile litigation. Should his confirmation be approved, he will be notable for being a Federal Circuit judge. Should his confirmation be denied, he will be notable for being among the handful of federal appellate judicial nominees to be rejected by the Senate. bd2412T 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the courts are notable, and that the judges are, but the judges only just. (no pun intended.) Yes, I'm certainly aware of the importance of the courts. Notability is not (in general) established by the importance of the particular job. Tb (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, which is why I wouldn't argue inherent notability for a state court judge. United States federal judges are different. The judiciary is a coequal branch of government, and every federal judge is a life member of that branch. bd2412T 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I would think any verifiable article on a presidential nominee subject to Senate confirmation is not a speedy candidate. Send to AfD if you must, but speedy, no. Jonathunder (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
By "the courts" I meant the federal circuit courts of appeals. Do you know how many nominees are subject to confirmation in the US Government? It's a surprisingly large number. In any case, your tone insults me a little, because I really do understand the things you school me on, while I do not agree that every nominee is inherently notable. Most nominees for most positions are in the press for their nomination, and generally very little else. Tb (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of nominees for federal positions that are not lifetime appointments, and even those that serve at the pleasure of the President. That alone is not the basis of the notability of federal judges. They are also equal to Congressmen in constitutional stature. bd2412T 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-MLB
Article: Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-MLB
01:34, 20 April 2010 BD2412 (talk | contribs) (89 bytes) (wait a moment, this page will be replenished with the next database dump - it's about time for one)
The older ones should actually be upmerged into the newer non-dated versions. The idea of keeping them, however, is that they are an indicator of how long a redlink has been sitting in the template, for those who wish to prioritize by age of the entry to be fixed. bd2412T 01:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not have a chance to respond to the speedy delete tag for the Allie Brosh article before it was deleted, but I wanted to get your input on improving the article and establishing sufficient notability such that it passes the test in section A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. I initially created the article because it seemed to me that the individual in question fulfilled the Wikipedia: Notability criteria; she is evidently the source of several internet memes which I have seen over the last several months, and is mentioned in various independent sources around the internet (Boing Boing, reddit, and a number of others). Let me know what you think can be done to improve the article. Thanks for your help. Alataristarion (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Notability requires, at a minimum, verifiable reporting in reliable and disinterested third party outlets, such as books in print, newspapers, news magazines, or websites such as the AP or Bloomberg. bd2412T 04:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your last protect
The last protection was to the TFA article. TbhotchTalkC. 04:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
What does that mean? bd2412T 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, now I see. No wonder it's been getting hit so hard tonight. bd2412T 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my edits on dab pages with links to dabs
I'm sorry. I haven't understood your instructions in the first place. Is it OK like this: [1]. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Eschew needless complexity
In this edit, you changed "[[polar]] regions" to "[[Polar region|polar]] regions". Why not just change it to "[[polar region]]s"? Why go out of your way to complicate things? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not every disambiguation link for "polar" was conveniently followed by "region". I set AWB to fix all links intended for that linkage, which initially appeared to be the simplest way to do it. Please
I assumed good faith but doubted good judgment. Letting bots make decisions without human supervision can result in sillinesses like this. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have never "let bots make decisions without human supervision". AWB is a human supervised process, and I simply chose the most efficient formulation to repair the largest number of disambiguation links. bd2412T 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
But you didn't overrule it in regard to that one particular link. That seems like lack of human supervision in that case. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My point is that there were many, many links to "Polar" which were intended for "Polar region", and only a few of them were written as "[[polar]] region". This was therefore the most efficient way to achieve the result of fixing these errors. Which I fixed - in a manner that provided the correct link for readers. bd2412T 16:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale
.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's funny - I don't recall having uploaded this one in the first place. bd2412T 15:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you didn't upload it but according to the template got it " (Courtesy of User:68.39.174.238, shows an old version of the BBFC's name and rating system. Image is a screenshot from this film, first few seconds in. Satisfies the FUC as far as the contributor knows. )"
I'll pass the message on. Cheers! bd2412T 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Washington
Washing is a dab page. Please stop undoing this to the redirect Washington (disambiguation). 02:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
First, sign your post correctly. Second, spell "Washington" correctly. Third, I know it's a disambig page, I'm fixing disambiguation links leading to it. I haven't "undone" anything to the redirect Washington (disambiguation). If you disagree, please provide diffs. bd2412T 02:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. You have new messages at R'n'B's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Knickerbocker Station
I don't get the point of the "fix" to the Knickerbocker Station entry in Knickerbocker. It pointed to a section of an article where Knickerbocker Station was listed. I don't expect it to have its own article, but I think it's reasonable to direct someone who's looking for it to an article that contextualizes it. Not R (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It was not pointed to an article at all, it was pointed to a disambiguation page. Every link on that disambiguation page should eventually have an article (or should link to an actual article that discusses the subject). The particular target in this place,
U.S. Post Office-Knickerbocker Station, is on the National Register of Historic Places, so it merits an article, and will have one when the NRHP project gets around to making it. bd2412T
16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I get it now! Not R (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Gallery
I just removed the link that you made in Cologne Cathedral from gallery to long gallery. A gallery can be many things, including "the galleries" in a theatre and the triforium and tribune galleries in a church, but a "long gallery" is something specific to stately homes, as described on that page. Please don't make this link elsewhere in articles about churches. Amandajm (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
There are only a few dozen links left for the disambiguation page "Gallery". It would be great if you could help us finish those up! Cheers! bd2412T
Hatnotes
See what you think of my recent edit to
Foo. Most likely, the same could be done with some other hatnote templates. --R'n'B (call me
Russ) 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I like it. Is there any way to automate creation of "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo" disambig pages having intentional incoming links? bd2412T 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that got reverted, and probably just as well, since a subsequent review shows that some 10% of pages containing {{other uses}} have some kind of potential usage error. I also generated this list of pages that can have the hatnote fixed without breaking anything, but even this list seems to include a lot of questionable usage; for example, the very first item, Kuna, Idaho, probably doesn't need a hatnote at all. Do you know if there are accepted usage guidelines for these templates? Any recent discussions I can point to when removing them, for example? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous is what you are looking for. Yes, those should be deleted, but they have a strange way of popping back up later, something which may require a long term fix (perhaps an invisible comment asking users not to put the hatnote there). Where a hatnote is warranted, perhaps the solution is to just make a new template incorporating your fix. bd2412T 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 is currently under peer review. As a frequent editor of the page, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks.--William S. Saturn (talk
) 00:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize I was a frequent editor of that page! bd2412T 01:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. (except for the typo) I'm convinced. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and I may have even tried to implement this & this myself! Again: Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Biblical names
Thanks for caring enough about verifiability to add the fact tags here. I hope people can start to see how this is not reliably sourced name definitions yet, and may never be.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to the list of names itself (so long as they can be shown to appear in the Bible, which not all do), it's just that a self-appointed protector of the page will revert their removal, making the page useless as a source of reliable information. bd2412T 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Federal building list
Sounds like a plan. I took care of Victoria's old federal building and created a section for the "new" building, plus filled in some court jurisdictional information. I'll try to get a few more done later tonight. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've put my two cents in. bd2412T 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The hatnote fixing bot job is stopped due to multiple objections raised on my talk page. I hope that a consensus can be achieved one way or the other. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You, sir, are a mad genius. bd2412T 17:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you are at least half right. :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
long-time ago blanking
I know it was quite some time ago, but you blankedUser talk:132.234.251.211, which now resulted in deletion of the page. The page contained at that moment not a lot of useful information, as the user himself put a short message there, but in that they practically removed a lot of warnings and remarks, and a block notice. I have undeleted the page and restored the warnings and blocking information again.
Now that I go through it, there are more where I see they should not have been deleted/blanked (e.g. diff relates to someone who has been warned for adding external links, vide infra). If the pages are used by systematic vandals or long-term vandals, then they should not be blanked, but left alone. Especially spammers pages should never be blanked, let alone deleted, it makes
our work extremely difficult (and especially for the non-admins, who can't see the tracks anymore). Could you please check the history of a user talk page before blanking them? --Dirk BeetstraTC
Could you please delete the above pages as the templates thereon have been de-redlinked and the lists removed. I'm now working on the 2005 redlinks. kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please delete the above pages because the redlinks have now been fixed and the lists removed, also I put in my last edit summary a request for an admin to delete this page in case you don't get to it. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
As you are the head of this project (WikiProject Redlinks) I think you should comment on the above. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S - I will be reverting my edits on navigational templates.
Speedy deletion of First Aid Kit (band)
Could you please reinstate this page, as it is about a known band who have an album out in the UK and have caused a lot of talk on the internet, based on their cover of a Fleet Foxes song posted to YouTube.Wwallacee (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but "caused a lot of talk on the internet" is not a basis for inclusion of a band. I'll be glad to restore the article to your user space per Wikipedia:Userfication, if you'd like to work on it there in hopes of providing references sufficient to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Cheers! bd2412T 15:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Commenting on and closing a deletion discussion
Howdy. You recently commented on, and closed this MfD. I don't disagree with the end result (User:Bmattas2 being non-existent), but you both commented and closed that discussion. I suggest that in the future you either comment in a deletion or close it. I wouldn't normally point this out, but none of the comments in the discussion (before yours) suggested merge, and the discussion wasn't open the recommended 7 days. For the record, I did notice the "boldly" part of your closing statement.--Rockfang (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I should have explained the basis of my action more thoroughly. I concluded that deletion would improperly destroy the edit history, and redirecting would create an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. That left only one viable course of action. bd2412T 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I understand the reasoning behind your closure, I was just pointing out that you commented in the discussion and closed it. From my experience, admins involved in a deletion discussion either comment in or close a discussion. Not both. My 2nd point was that it appears you closed it early. In the end, it isn't really a big deal I guess, I just wanted to share my opinion.--Rockfang (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and I understand your concerns. I don't think there is a strict prohibition against admins commenting and closing, but it is generally considered better to avoid the appearance of having an agenda or a conflict of interest in deletion discussions. bd2412T 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412. I had stopped fixing the malplaced dabs at OKS because it looked like some of the history (10:06, 22 May 2008 and earlier) needed to be moved to OKS Turkey. I may yet take a look into it, but not soon. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi...hope all is good with you...I see that two years ago, you split off a subsection from Mount Rushmore, or just created a new page at Mount Rushmore in popular culture and obviously expanded it here...there are no issues with the split as far as I am concerned...but at some point, the section that should have discussed in brief the details of the daughter article have vanished...well, Mount Rushmore is up at FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mount Rushmore/archive1...would you be interested in enhancing the section on the Mount Rushmore page...seems you did at one point have some interest in this...my focus for National Park related topics has been primarily the northern Rockies region and I am still working on stubbing a bunch of articles related to Glacier National Park...but I might be able to also chip in to save Mount Rushmore from being delisted as featured...anyway..thought I would alert you to this issue...best wishes.--MONGO 05:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks..I see you have done a fine job enhancing the section in question.--MONGO 11:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Spelling correction within URL
Hi, in this edit back in 2008, you broke a link. I expect it was just an oversight, but if you are doing spelling corrections, please take care not to change anything within URLs. - Fayenatic(talk) 11:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I've done tens of thousands of minor fixes like these, and usually catch things like that. Once in a blue moon, I slip up, as I did there. bd2412T 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey thought you might want to come to this one, we are getting a tour of the Smithsonian and probably will be discussing collaboration with the institute. We will probably get a team together to meet with them in the coming months. I thought you might be interested because of you other collaboration efforts. Sadads (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you. bd2412T 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way that you can firm up your plans? We would like to include you in our count for dinner? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:CeciliaAltonaga.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to
fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale
.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You can go ahead and delete this, I've uploaded a public domain image in its place. bd2412T 02:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your attention to my link to Judgepedia in this entry. I grasped at the Judgepedia entry, I acknowledge, because I've been in a difficult situation here for some time. In short, independently, the Judgepedia entry covers the UBS case, in a similar way as I had tried to cover it in Wikipedia. As I put it in my parallel Talk entry on the 15th, my colleague in Wikipedia has been blocking any direct mention of the UBS case in the judge's entry.
I see you haven't removed the Judgepedia link. I'm glad to do it, or have you do it. If you care to take on the substantive issue with Judge Zloch's entry raised in that Talk page, I would appreciate it. I'll wait for your response before acting. Swliv (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to the inclusion of details of any particular case, so long as it is not presented in a way that makes it disproportionate to the whole of the judge's jurisprudence. I happen to have worked on a rather notable case before Judge Zloch, too. bd2412T 23:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:GLAM/SI
Hey, I created a page at
Wikipedia:GLAM/SI as a good central place for discussion of ideas of what we can offer to the Smithsonian at the Meetup meeting. You are pretty active in this sort of stuff in the DC area, so I thought you would be interested. Sadads (talk
) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me, I'll see what I can come up with. bd2412T 15:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I updated that section so now we have project-like things going on. Sadads (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikimeetup DC
Thanks you too. --
talk
) 02:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Bilski v. Kappos
Thanks for your additions to the article, they are much appreciated. Verkhovensky (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know that I deleted a post of yours at the talk page because it was not suggesting any improvement to the article. Please remember that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles, not reporting news about them.
I didn't add that post, I only added a header sectioning it off from the previous post. Check more carefully next time. Cheers! bd2412T 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I did, weeks ago, and the outcome of cases argued by Kagan is certainly relevant to the article, so the section should be restored. The last thing I saw you delete was the LGBT section, for which I merely added a separate header. I suppose that makes me the one who needs to check more carefully next time. bd2412T 21:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Eh, no harm, no foul. I'll specify exactly which edit I'm referring to next time. As for the actual post, it's definitely relevant, but it reads like news. If you want to add it back, suggest how it should be incorporated into the article. Thanks for helping to keep that talk page organized.
Since you initiated the discussion to delete the article on the Fellowship of Friends, I hope you’re the right person to address this to. While the case is closed and the page should not be edited, it concerns me that there is a link in the deletion discussion to an online book with a strong negative point of view about that organization. While the article existed, this same link was removed by an admin and added to the BLP noticeboard, with a majority of comments opposed to using it. Now it appears as the only information in Wikipedia about the organization. This seems wrong – a violation of both common sense and a few of Wikipedia’s policies. Do you agree, and can you fix it? Thanks.
It is not a violation of any policy to link to a source and honestly say that it was the source that had the most extensive discussion of the topic. However, since the discussion is over, I see no harm to removing the link. Cheers! bd2412T 20:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow! quick response, thanks. What do you think about deleting the internal link to the book in one of the comments? Oh, and I just noticed I forgot to sign my previous post. --Moon Rising (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit someone else's comment. It's just not done. bd2412T 01:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. --Moon Rising (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Beaux Arts
I note you just replaced a bunch of links to
Beaux arts architecture a redirect, but I'm alerting you if you think there's a better option. Andrew Jameson (talk
) 17:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I had just assumed it was already a redirect. Cheers! bd2412T 18:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hatnote bot
You might be interested in (or thoroughly discouraged by)
WP:ANI#RussBot Problem
. Apparently the concept of "consensus" means you have to get every single user's permission to do something, which isn't quite what I thought it meant. --18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Adsend
Do you think Adsend would qualify for an AfD? Seems to be just promotion, though I'm not sure if I can tag it A7 or spam as I really don't know much about technology. Would you know what to do? -WarthogDemon 03:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems speedyable to me. So tagged. bd2412T 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This article as well then? It's the other one the editor made. -WarthogDemon 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
So long as the link points to a disambig page, it is an error, and will show up on the lists of pages to be fixed. Fix the links and this issue won't arise again. bd2412T 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not an error. Teh disambiguartion page makes it perfectly clear what kind of person a "dean" is, and so the current link is understandabkle to everyone but bots and botlike lists.
We have an entire project set up to repair links to disambiguation pages because they are inherently erroneous. Was
guitar? A rebel without a cause? If there is a notable concept of a dean as an officer in a guild, then we should have an article on the topic, and the links should point there. If it is a non-notable concept, it should not be linked at all. bd2412T
13:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
As soon as we have an article for civil deans, the articles can point there. For now, when you notice that someone is given as the dean of a guild, and you go to the dean article, then the first thing you notice is that is a title used by certain positions of authority, heads of divisions, and so on. Lacking a better article, this is the information people want. If you believe that our reders are so stupid that they believe that a 17th century painter who is indicated as being the dean of a guild may perhaps be a guitar or James Dean, then that's your problem, not mine. But if you start pointing links to the wrong article, as you did thrice on (at least) two articles, thereby giving the readers worse info than they had when they were pointed to a disambiguation page, then you are not repairing links, you are just clearing items from your list. However, clearing such a list is less important than helping our readers. Please reconsider what our priorities are here.
Lest we go too far on the wrong foot, I do regret having made the erroneous links to Dean (Christianity) (I mistook "St. Luke" for a religious order). If the dean of a guild is notable enough to merit encyclopedic treatment, I'll write the article. If not, then surely we must have an article on leadership offices within guilds to which this link is better addressed. bd2412T 14:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment. A separate article would be the best (it would certainly solve our little dispute!). We have
Guild#Organization appears to cover a number of variations (although not this one). If the topic could be covered there, the links could redirect to that section. bd2412T 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
using the dab solver: no userspace links, please
Make sure you don't introduce userspace links in mainspace when using the dab solver (or anything else, for that matter- I'm assuming you know
No idea how that happened (unless the link on the actual disambig page was piped to userspace for some reason), but obviously it won't happen again. Cheers! bd2412T 04:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I just noticed I'd been on that page twice for the same link, so I was a little testy. Carry on, and thanks for the rest of your dab work. tedder (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
