User:BD2412/Archive 012
The most belated congratulations imaginableAs 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 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your good efforts. --evrik (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
Land
- Thank you for reverting my edits to land, and offering sufficiently substantive comment to begin a discussion. You make a very valid point though to include "rock" and indeed I could have written instead "
- Land is dirt and rock which has horizontality to the planetary surface, foundation actual to human living, and psychic proportionality to human psychology."
- Now, indeed I have not edited for a while, and my editing of that article was indeed a kind of a lark. That said, it raises an interesting issue for me that the concept of "land" has vital essences for living. Land indeed is not "dirt" exactly, however the abundance of what we typically call land is "dirt," in the sense that most of what we "see" as land is indeed flat and therefore of geological substance which is particulate rather than of conglomerated essence. "Rock" typically has the property of being of unusable form with regard to being "land." The point is that "Land," typically has some essence of being something people can use with regard to their living. The word "land" has an essence of meaning which is at the nexus of all uses of land, namely a "firmament for human living," and this is true whether the land is on dirt or rock or on some imaginary world of which has the property of being artificial, and therefore is made of substances which are not "geological." Or perhaps by definition anything which is of "geo" must therefore be of its "logic" and is therefore "land." But the current lede:
- "Land, sometimes referred to as dry land, is the solid surface of the Earth, that is not covered by water."
- Seems to lend to much substance to the distinction between land and water, without governing that distinction as a matter of conceptual language, which owns in the human mind the idea that "land" is indeed something of human living," while other essences "water" and "air" do not sustain human living. The article could get into this idea that some land is better than others, and likewise get into the idea that some land is "Holy," indeed not just because it has historical meaning and a psychic idea in the human mind, but a living in a way which transcends the very idea of "dirt." Hence I come back to the inevitable admission that my edits were indeed a bit cheeseball, but I am owning up to the idea that my comments here could be of construction here in this idea of saying what "land" is is more than just a geological thing in terms of physical nature, but something of a psychic construct which has an essence of human living and even some love in it, if the land is beautiful. -Warm regards, Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. You make some reasonable points, and I have added to the lede the observation that "land, and particularly those areas of land that support agriculture, hunting, and other human activities, may be invested with great emotional and cultural value". I think that the relationship between humanity and land is adequately summed up by this, and the second sentence of the lede, "The vast majority of human activity has historically occurred, and continues to occur, on land". Cheers! bd2412 T 16:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Colorado Springs
Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. Thank you. --NE2 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- At the time that I fixed the links, they were broken, an editor having turned the page to a disambiguation page. This action was later reverted by another editor. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Minesweeping as Broad Concept Article
Just wanted to flag up reservations on your request - the whole subject area has a lot of duplication already across various articles. Naval minesweeping is substantially different from demining (you generally use ships or aircraft, versus specialised vehicles or man-portable detecting devices for landmines). At first sight, I'd say that these are two different subjects with some similarities and the same name. I might add more thoughts on this later, but thought an immediate comment was appropriate. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think that there is a level of abstraction below that of merely sharing the same name at which these concepts are connected, and can be described holistically (see Particle for an example of this). bd2412 T 01:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
In the clear light of dawn, I think the issues are as follows: Previously, if you looked up Minesweeping you arrived solely at the
- A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, an extra step that is not used where not necessary. Here we have only two possibilities, meaning that (per WP:TWODABS) if one topic can be deemed primary, then the disambiguating function can be fulfilled by a hatnote at the top of that page. In other words, there is no need to send 100% of readers to a disambiguation page if half are looking for one option, and the second option can fit into a hatnote. In this case, the two topics are related - in fact, the material you present in your discussion above, if sourced, would provide the basis for an article section covering the shifting usage of the term, "minesweeping", which would further benefit readers looking for either of the two meanings. bd2412 T12:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am revealing myself as something of a novice at this stuff, but I think a few issues still remain. Firstly
- It seems likely at this point that most people who look for "minesweeping" are looking for the naval context, so that is probably the real primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 19:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Since "minesweeping" is dealt with as a section of the naval mine article, I presume that you now think the Minesweeping disambiguation page is appropriate. If "Minesweeping" had an article of its own, then the hatnote solution would apply. To write such an article would involve a lot of duplication, since the naval mine and demining articles both cover their own parts of the subject admirably and the terminological shift is dealt with by either reading the naval mine article (which mentions the subject name "Mine Countermeasures" or (subconsciously) by exercising the choice on the disambiguation page that takes you to demining. I've now written much more than I intended on this subject; thanks for your patience. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Commas for tornados
I'm a bit disturbed by the outcome of the requested move you closed at
To study the situation, I tried to sort out supporting versus non-supporting commentary, summarized as follows:
- Opposed (5): BarrelProof, Dicklyon, TornadoLGS, George Ho, AjaxSmack
- Support (7): United States Man, Dohn joe, BDD, Charmlet, Evolauxia, Red Slash, Amakuru
I suppose you are correct that the number supporting the move exceeds the number opposed (and I agree that George's views were not especially coherent). However, personally, I consider the supporting argumentation weak, since the move appears to clearly violate the useful
Many of the supporting comments seemed to be based on the idea that the guideline should be changed or ignored under certain circumstances, but I would counter with the notion that unless and until a guideline is changed, it should be followed.
Other supporting comments seem to be based on the fact that some other titles violate the guideline in the same way as what was suggested here, which seems like something that has a clear alternative solution (i.e., changing the other titles so that they obey the guideline too).
The final supporting argument (other than just
I suppose I must acknowledge that guidelines should have exceptions, but I don't see a prevailing strength of consensus here that seems sufficient to justify making such an exception in this case.
I don't think I have expressed a personal opinion about whether the
My understanding is that a move closure should be based on the strength of the arguments and the relevant policies and guidelines, as well as just assessing whether most people like a suggestion or not. Personally, I don't see how this move closure is consistent with that principle. Of course, I am someone who was on the losing side of the argument, and I hope my thinking is not just a matter of bad feelings generated by that fact.
—BarrelProof (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that it is generally understood that the MoS is a guideline, and that local consensus can establish a different outcome for a particular article or subset of articles. I didn't think that this was a blowout in favor of one position or another, but to me the weight of consensus is clear. bd2412 T 18:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I personally still don't get it. What's normal about writing "she was injured in the July 3, 2013, tornado outbreak"? Who puts a comma? I believe the difference is that MOS:BADDATEFORMAT is talking about dates as nouns but here it is acting as an adjective. "On July 3, 2013, there was a tornado..." Everyone likes that. I've never seen (to my recollection) a comma placed after a year in a date that is being used as an adjective. I will post on the MOS talk page. Red Slash01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I personally still don't get it. What's normal about writing "she was injured in the July 3, 2013, tornado outbreak"? Who puts a comma? I believe the difference is that
How to fix links affected by an article move
Hello BD2412. Do you know if there's a script or bot that could help with this? Due to an August 2013 move, there are more than 500 links to
- Where the previous title redirects to the current title, this is usually not considered something that needs "fixing" at all, since a reader following the link will arrive at the right page. bd2412 T 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to Trademark Policy Discussion
Hi BD2412,
I noticed that you've contributed to the trademark article on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach out to you because the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has just released a draft trademark policy for consultation with the Wikimedia community. The purpose of the new draft is to facilitate permissive use of the Wikimedia trademarks for the community while preserving protection of the marks.
I thought that you may have an interesting perspective to add to this discussion, given your interest in trademark law. I would like to personally invite you to review the new draft and contribute any comments you may have. We plan to keep the discussion open for two months and incorporate the feedback into the final trademark policy. We hope this new version of the policy will make it easier for community members to use the logos to encourage Wikipedia editing.
Best,
DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Consolation
I'd move it now off of your subpage and directly to article space, personally, but you should probably have the honors. Great idea, good job, wonderful execution. Red Slash 00:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks! bd2412 T 00:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the gift of consolation, needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong button?
- )
I'm not sure which level of protection you intended to place, semi- or full-, but I assume you didn't mean to apply
- Something like that? This redirect has a large number of incoming links, and consensus has previously been established as to its target, but editors still come along from time to time and change it without asking about it first. I suppose full admin protection is the best defense against rash action here. bd2412 T 14:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Waimakariri District
Do you want to join WikiProject
- Thanks, but that is way outside of my zone of expertise. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of
Full circle ringing
Hi, I note your
- Although specific details of different types might justify individual articles, the overall concept is not ambiguous, and can be covered in an article. In short, these terms are not ambiguous items that happen to share the same name; they are different types of the same general concept. bd2412 T 17:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done (First attempt at least.) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Personal relationship skills
Hi, I see that you had a few views on this article some years ago. It is now too essay-like, some say. Others wish to keep it. Going, going... gone? Articles for discussiondeletion link here >> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationship skills. Any article can benefit from feedback. I have never seen an essay which has a notable academic citation for every sentence. ~ ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 01:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Minor barnstar | |
Thanks for attending to the history! --evrik (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC) |
Redirect deletion
Hi can you explain why you deleted
- Technically, this would be under Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity). Neither one mentions anything about the name "Rodina", so there is no evidence of any encyclopedic significance for any person named "Marina Rodina". bd2412 T20:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Talk:Marina_Orlova_(Internet_celebrity)#Marina_Rodina_Real_or_model_name.2Falias_sources?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion has no bearing on a redirect to a disambiguation page. Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity). There is no evidence that "Marina Rodina" has anything to do with the Marina Orlova (actress), or is a plausible typo, and therefore no reason for that title to redirect to the disambiguation page. bd2412 T21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- So then why didn't you fix the redirect to the correct article caused by the page move? Instead you deleted it, outside of policy.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is an implausible redirect to the page to which it was pointed, and the name is not mentioned on either of the other two pages. It is an implausible typo for any title. If you disagree, please feel free to take it up at 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you readily ignoring previous discussions on the subject? They are at Talk:Marina_Orlova_(Internet_celebrity)#Redirect_to_Marina_Rodina.3F. I request you restore the redirect immediately, as the deletion was done outside of policy and I have contested it.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Per 21:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you readily ignoring previous discussions on the subject? They are at
- It is an implausible redirect to the page to which it was pointed, and the name is not mentioned on either of the other two pages. It is an implausible typo for any title. If you disagree, please feel free to take it up at 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- So then why didn't you fix the redirect to the correct article caused by the page move? Instead you deleted it, outside of policy.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion has no bearing on a redirect to a disambiguation page.
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_outside_of_policy_by_involved_admin per your request.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I restored the redirect, but I am unable to restore the damage to your reputation. If you take this to a discussion to get it deleted, I can copy and paste the sources I provided before. Since I provided those in 2010, there are actually even more sources available to prove the connection to the subject. So in the interest of your reputation, I suggest you don't bother.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that there is no need for me to propose the deletion of this redirect, as this has already been proposed. As for my reputation, don't fret about it. I will stand on my eight years as an admin and 460,000 edits, covering every subject matter area in the compendium. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Bass guitar
Hi! Just thought I'd let you know that the correct disambiguation for bass is
- Bass (guitar) redirects to Bass guitar, and as such is an improvement over the link to the disambiguation page. Informally, it lets me keep track of how many links to Bass guitar were fixed from disambiguation links. bd2412 T20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Shi Tao
Hi. Could you please check your Moves regarding
14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Template:Now Commons to be changed
Hey. You participated in the move discussion for 'Already moved to Commons'. Since I closed that with a move to a new name, I'm wondering if I should just go ahead and modify {{
- I have no particular answer for this; I have moved templates before without those sorts of complications arising, since the redirects will continue to function. bd2412 T 15:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
disambiguation contest
Hey, thanks for posting on my talk page about the Nov disambiguation contest. However, unfortunately I didn't get my message in time to participate (I don't jump on here that often), but know that I appreciate you having the contest and challenging others to participate and get the wiki articles updated (and accurate)! Hope you have another contest again in the future too. Zul32 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Christianity
I'm not too hopeful of Pass a Method discussing the disputed content - I have started two talk page discussions, but Pass a Method kept adding the material back in. An RfC would be really helpful, though there were two distinct issues. But either way, I will step back. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good. At this point, the issue needs to be resolved by discussion before either of you make any further changes. I note that the article is now at the state that it was before the dispute began, and should stay that way until it is settled. bd2412 T 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Draft pages for RPG bios
Hey
Hey BD2412,
On a somewhat related topic, I have seen a few IP editors posting that Anthony J. Bryant has passed away, but the best I have seen so far is Facebook posts and forums as sources. Can you help me keep an eye on this one, and if possible add any better sources to this one in case what they are saying is true? BOZ (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Tax Charts
BD2412, you commented on one of the Tax Charts in the
Suggestion about recent edit
Hi BD2412! To go along with this edit, should you also update the date/time in your sig? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought about it. I don't think it matters, really, as long as there is progress being made with those links. bd2412 T 04:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
In this edit you nuked the shared IP ownership tag as well as the prior block n warnings. Please be more careful with those... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I did so intentionally. IP ownership information is as transitory as anything else. We have no way of knowing that the block of IP addresses has not been reassigned without checking all of them, and where an IP address has produced no edits in four years (two years since the expiration of the last block), there is no point to maintaining any information of that sort on the page. bd2412 T 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The check takes ten seconds, with the handy "Whois" link at the bottom of their contribs. I understand the point of cleaning up truly stale IP warnings, but the ownership remains the same for the IP address... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but...
If you want to disambiguate a link, like you did from Coat of arms of the London Borough of Camden, please make sure the new link goes to the right article. It didn't. I have fixed it now. Thanks for your effort, anyway, and Happy New Year. Arms Jones (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Name Blending
Sorry for the late response. I'd be glad to see the Name Blending article revived and to do my best to rework it with those new sources.
Thanks!
Query
[1] indicates a topic ban placed on an editor for a specific topic. My query is whether a founder of that group's BLP is also covered by such a topic ban (and where the topic banned article is directly and prominently linked) ? See [2] and a great many article talk page edits where the subject is described in the body of the BLP as "To promote his economic and political ideas, Rothbard joined Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. and Burton Blumert in 1982 to establish the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama." Also [3] about a person who is described as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute. And also numerous talk pages edits on that BLP. [4] another related BLP. [5] another. [6] another. (Stopping at the two week mark -- I suspect there are more if I go back to November 4 for sure). If the topic ban so tightly construed that it lets him edit BLPs about founders and members of the subject he is banned from? If so, fine -- I am not trying to get him into trouble if he has done naught wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The topic ban as discussed by the community related to the specific article, and nothing else. The community is always able to revisit the limitations of any editor's conduct. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- bd2412 is correct. The ban is probably better described as an article ban, not a topic ban. But the community-authorized sanctions gives administraters broad authority at their own discretion to impose sanctions on any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
All Creatures
Nice work. I was going to leave the disambiguations until I was done, because there will be duplicates (actors played more than one character). -
- It wasn't too hard. For perhaps 90% of them, the right answer is "Foo pers (actor)". Cheers! bd2412 T 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar | ||
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to BD2412, for successfully fixing 3377 links in the challenge of December 2013. Rcsprinter (indicate) @ 23:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Disambig controversy
You might want to keep an eye on Broadway (New York City) today. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
RfC concerning the article name for Broadway
Because you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, or related to the subject, please see RfC: What is the best name for the article about the street called "Broadway" which originates in Manhattan? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Wilf K. Backhaus
Hi BD2412,
I noticed that you recently used Requested Moves to get an AFD'ed article back from draft space into article space, so I am trying that here with this subject. You said previously that you would try to help out with RPG related Draft space pages, so I am asking if you can help find any sources for this person. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Similar situation with Draft:Tom Braunlich. BOZ (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- BD2412, if you can help out on either of those, that would be a great place to start. :) BOZ (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)