User:BD2412/Archive 017
Law School Transparency RetaliationEpeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663725919&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663826565&oldid=663635214 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663712714&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABA_Journal&type=revision&diff=663728099&oldid=643625305 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&type=revision&diff=663728236&oldid=652907416 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663725721&oldid=663714656 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Chicago&type=revision&diff=663727449&oldid=662822725 This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_repeated_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sour_grapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Pink RMIt's a pity didn't WP:TM can trump policies that supposedly outrank it because it is so simple and widely known. NotUnusual (talk ) 11:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Surname and given name pagesI'm not sure where to find any guidelines about surname/given name pages, so I'm not sure what to do in a situation like Cahto people). Kato (disambiguation) has four people on it, along with links to places, and other uses (including the radio stations and the Cahto people and language). Should they be merged? Should Kato be moved to Kato (name) and only have names on it (with the disambiguation page moving to Kato)? Should the non-names be removed from Kato and everything else left alone? I'm not sure what is the best practice/consensus in this situation. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
请求版权gu yasha为了进行古雅莎gu yasha中文版本的编辑,不得已复制了您的版本,因为复制weiki以外的版权是侵权的,在此申请版本 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 李建兴 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA voteHi. I am Piotr Konieczny ( WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Fee tail![]() SituationSo, O.K. You just did the Smith way... So what was the reason behind my block? Was in the way? Also, can you come here so that we can discuss the issue in one place. P.S. Its my first indefinite block on English Wikipedia, I hope it wont damage my reputation on this site?--Mishae (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Original research problem--blogger quoting himself on Wikipedia
Palatalization: phonetic feature vs. sound changeHey, I noticed that you disambiguated some links to the disambiguation page Palatalization, which has been split into Palatalization (phonetics) and Palatalization (sound change). However, in some cases, I think you have pointed to the wrong article: for instance, Attic Greek § Consonants is referring to the sound change, not the phonetic feature. If you can easily fix this, I would appreciate it; if you're not sure which link should point to which article, let me know and maybe I can do it for the articles on my Watchlist. — Eru·tuon 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Clay LeGrandOkay looks like I found a source that he did die-but not sure how to fit this in, found a mention of him here: http://www.weertsfh.com/obituary.html?id=2418&print Wgolf (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC) BTW-I found a page for Charles Robert Wolle that you also made of for Charles S. Wolle who looks like the same person (even though last time I checked S. is not in the word Robert) Wgolf (talk ) 20:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The external linksOkay I was trying to get to the actual page of the link also. Sorry about that. Wgolf (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
One article for some reason it says the access date code is invalid for some reason. On this one: Warren J. Rees. Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Oh on Robert L. Larson it links to a guy from the 1950s though it says he is from the 19th century-pretty sure they are 2 different guys.(and JL Larson linked to Robert Larson but I changed that to deceased as I could tell it was the right guy) Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC) SyrizaWhen you closed the RM, you moved the article to SYRIZA, but the majority indicated support for 'Syriza'. talk ) 11:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
possible dab concept pageI think WP:DABCONCEPT page, but I'm not sure. Most of the links went to the dab page, and were worded very similarly, but maybe that's a normal thing for a topic like this. Xaxafrad (talk ) 07:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Request for your opinionGood morning BD2412! I noticed you've edited the topic Jimmy Edgar somewhat recently, and was hoping to collect viewpoints on an aesthetic issue. If you had a minute to contribute to the discussion/vote on the infobox photo, that would be very helpful. Earflaps (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC) FIFOFIFO is now a hell of a mess. Please talk it through at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FIFO_disambiguation_page_chaos. --Penbat (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Now here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#FIFO --Penbat (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Edit request for Sophie Hunter pageThere is a one-sentence paragraph in Hunter's lead that could be easily merged with the first. There is no reason for it to be separate from the main one. Please be so kind to merge them, please. Thank you! 180.191.69.3 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding User:198.108.96.75Hi. I believe in the past you were concerned along with possibly other administrators, about a user:198.108.96.75, who you may have suspected was a sockpuppet for someone else (VandalIST). Just for your own edification (you may actually already be aware of this but the User:talk dialogue was blanked at some point so I couldn't immediately tell if this had ever entered the discussion), the IP address the user was using is part of a range of IP addresses that are included in Michigan's Merit Network which has been part of various test and experimental networks for deployments to the Public Internet for a number of years. At one point, the Merit Network also had routers that were available and open for public users to test and play with until a few years ago. But what is most likely to have happened (rather than an external user gaining access) is that a student from within Michigan's Merit Network which accounted for several different universities that were linked to it directly, gained access to the Merit IP through a computer associated with one of the sister networks (of the fellow universities that comprise it), essentially spoofing Wikipedia's technology, since Wikipedia only records the last IP as the corresponding contributor. Hopefully I have added some further clarity to what could have been at the time, an otherwise perplexing experience. If I did than I am happy to have done so, otherwise maybe this information will be of use sometime in your future. In either case, have a wonderful day... Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015
Thanks for an informative User pageAfter going over your user page, I made the mental effort to add the appropriate, for me, additional licenses to my user page (DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Future and LicenseGPL). Your page wasn't the first, but the last straw in my contemplation over some years of procrastination. Oh, one more note, I never expected to come across another user like me who cites xkcd as a bullet point there. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Editing for Women's History in March
Thank you for the notice![]() It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{ ygm}} template. Egsan Bacon (talk at any time by removing the Resilience dabsThanks for trying to tackle the resilience dabs. I tried, but honestly found too many examples that I couldn't really place - in part, I think, because the collection of articles splits things based on discipline, rather than on reality. Anyway, three dabs that bother me:
All three of these articles are talking about the same thing, more or less. If I had to pick one, I'd say that the resilience (organizational) has such an overwhelmingly corporate focus.
And then there's these knotty problems
The first of these is clearly ecology, it's got ecological in its name, it references Holling and Gunderson. But it covers both ecosystem resilience and organisational resilience. The second one also covers both social and ecological - both organisational and ecology. And the last one is the same "relationships between people and things" is a major chunk of human ecology. I find all of these dabs unsatisfactory, presumably because the choice of articles is unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, I'm bothered, especially since all of this will probably be lost as soon as the dabsolver page refreshes. Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
hican you put Middle jüz,Senior juz,Little jüz on List of Turkic dynasties and countries?Mehmeett21 14:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Diocese of Moosonee (disambiguation)![]() A tag has been placed on section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information .
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) KanakHello, I noticed you undid my redirection of Kanak to Kanak people. I've started a discussion on wether or not to redirect the page. If you've got a minute, please contribute your opinion. Thanks, Liam987(talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!Just thought I'd say thanks for noticing that rather embarrassing cock up!, Not sure how the hell I ended up screwing it up but thanks nonetheless!, You have a messagePlease see your talk page at Simple English Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC) You are awesome!You have the COOLEST user page I have ever seen on Wikipedia! :D CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC) This article should never have been created was clearly invented by
|
![]() | On 12 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jane Eyre (1910 film), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jane Eyre was the first American movie adaptation of the novel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Eyre (1910 film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Preemptive protection?
I'm pretty upset with what you just did at
- I haven't forced anything out of process. This is the title at which the page was created in June of 2014; it would be improper to move it without a discussion anyway (or in any case, if it was moved without a discussion, it would speedily be moved back pending such a discussion, per WP:RM). It would be downright foolish to leave it open to page-move vandals, who can create a sleeper account and wait a few days with a handful of edits to move the page to a string of expletives. Furthermore, even if the page were not move protected, it could not be moved to the title proposed in the current discussion (or the correctly spelled variation of it), because that title is already occupied by a redirect created by another editor. Cheers! bd2412 T21:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I know what've you done. Unprotect the page, or move it to the appropriate title. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, if I unprotect the page you still won't be able to move it because that title is already occupied by a redirect, which an administrator would need to delete. Furthermore, the page is already at the appropriate title. This is the name of the campaign, irrespective of the name of the candidate. However, you seem to want to learn things the hard way, so I have reset the move protection to autoconfirmed users. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand how an administrator that protected the article is participating in a content dispute at that article. Is something amiss? RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- The protection of the page took place before any content dispute arose. bd2412 T 23:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? You preempted the opposition, which is a cheap tactic. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- What opposition? The page was created at 23:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand how an administrator that protected the article is participating in a content dispute at that article. Is something amiss? RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, if I unprotect the page you still won't be able to move it because that title is already occupied by a redirect, which an administrator would need to delete. Furthermore, the page is already at the appropriate title. This is the name of the campaign, irrespective of the name of the candidate. However, you seem to want to learn things the hard way, so I have reset the move protection to autoconfirmed users. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I know what've you done. Unprotect the page, or move it to the appropriate title. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Date for HRC RM
Hi BD2412,
Any ideas on when you're gonna launch the HRC RM? Excluding a couple minor changes I mentioned on the talk page, it looks pretty clear and concise to me, and you have my congrats on a well crafted proposal.
I understand your reticence to push the RM too close HC's presidential bid announcement. I'm guessing though that given the number of campaign announcements occuring, that level of attention surrounding the subject should recede significantly in the near future. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I want to wait for the Village Pump discussion to wind down and be closed be an administrator. However, I don't intend to be the one to launch this discussion. bd2412 T 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- re "I don't intend to be the one to launch this discussion" - Haha. I understand. God save the poor blighter who takes up the thankless task of actually launching that RM. All the hatred and vitriol that he or she will be subject to is not too tempting. ;-)
- re "the Village Pump discussion to wind down" - Ok. So maybe in 48 hrs request a close, then wait approx 24 hrs for close? Target 3 days or so. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds like a reasonable time frame. We will also need to draft the actual RM notice (which will go on the article talk page, and direct readers to the subpage) and a neutral notification for all previous participants in these discussions, and the relevant Wikiprojects. bd2412 T 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would be willing to formally initiate the request if no other volunteers can be found. I would like to put together a draft proposal, but that wouldn't be until later this week or this weekend at the earliest. T|C03:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @because that spanner is already in the works. However, your help and refinement would definitely be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T03:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. There are a few things I would like to clean up first. T|C03:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- That would be most welcome. bd2412 T 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking this on ) 20:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Calidum: I have changed the prospective start date to April 27, since the Village Pump discussion is still somewhat active. I think that it is very important that any potential procedural objections be settled by the community before any discussion starts, to avoid shenanigans. Also, I will be unavailable for a few more days, due to real-life stuff. At that point, however, I am actually thinking that it would be better to push the discussion to May 1, so the page could be moved to a May title and not cross from one month to the next. bd2412 T14:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @bd2412 - Time to request close at the village pump? NickCT (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are still a few stray comments coming in here and there, but nothing that changes the balance, and the discussion itself has wound down. I have no objection to calling for a close. bd2412 T 16:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- ) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Closure done. We're still on for the 27th? NickCT (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- If Calidum is comfortable with that date. We have two out of three volunteers for closers; one is a non-admin (but has closed RMs). My list of past discussion participants to be notified has been updated. bd2412 T15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe include, @Euryalus and Mdann52: in this conversation? NickCT (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Until we have a launch date, there's nothing for any admins to patrol. bd2412 T 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I guess I thought they might have ideas on the appropriate start date.
- Are we just going to wait longer for a third closer?
- Anyway. I'm taking my lead from you. I'll be ready to send out notifications when the time comes. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- We don't really need a third closer until it's time to close, and I am sure someone will pop up by then. I am fine with launching whenever, since I have nothing in particular to add to the proposal. bd2412 T 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I made one or two minor tweaks. I also think it's good to launch whenever. I guess the ball is in brave ) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- We don't really need a third closer until it's time to close, and I am sure someone will pop up by then. I am fine with launching whenever, since I have nothing in particular to add to the proposal. bd2412 T 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Until we have a launch date, there's nothing for any admins to patrol. bd2412 T 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe include, @Euryalus and Mdann52: in this conversation? NickCT (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- If
- Closure done. We're still on for the 27th? NickCT (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- ) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are still a few stray comments coming in here and there, but nothing that changes the balance, and the discussion itself has wound down. I have no objection to calling for a close. bd2412 T 16:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- @bd2412 - Time to request close at the village pump? NickCT (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- @
- Thanks for taking this on ) 20:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- That would be most welcome. bd2412 T 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. There are a few things I would like to clean up first.
- @
- I would be willing to formally initiate the request if no other volunteers can be found. I would like to put together a draft proposal, but that wouldn't be until later this week or this weekend at the earliest.
- That sounds like a reasonable time frame. We will also need to draft the actual RM notice (which will go on the article talk page, and direct readers to the subpage) and a neutral notification for all previous participants in these discussions, and the relevant Wikiprojects. bd2412 T 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have drafted an RM notice to place at
{{subst:requested move | new1 = Hillary Clinton | current2 = Electoral history of Hillary Rodham Clinton | new2 = Electoral history of Hillary Clinton | current3 = Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors | new3 = Hillary Clinton awards and honors | current4 = List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton | new4 = List of books by or about Hillary Clinton | current5 = Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton | new5 = Political positions of Hillary Clinton | reason = For the reasons set forth at [[Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request]], it is proposed that "Hillary Clinton" is her common name, and is more recognizable (particularly to the large population of Wikipedia readers outside the United States), more natural, more concise, and more consistent with titles for human names. Please note: '''discussion of this proposal is taking place at [[Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request]]'''.}}
Please feel free to change it as needed. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi BD2412. Looks OK. Indenting moves 2 to 5 might be a good idea, as (I think I agree) they logically follow the first. If the first is changes, so should all that follow. Possibly, the first might not happen but 2 and 5 might, for example? However, even if indenting is helpful, it is probably not worth the effort. Generally, I think multi-page moves unhelpfully complicate things, increasing the likelihood of "no consensus", however, this set looks OK, if read.
- So the discussion is to take place at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request" (or similar).
- I trust you (or someone) will do this in the coming week? It would be messy to have to move the subpage from "April" to "May".
- I suspect that this discussion will easily occupy four weeks. Should you slap an RfC template on top, to provide wider advertising, and to imply an expected 30 day discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, since we've had the discussion at length before, and all past participants will be notified as soon as it begins, I don't see any reason at the outset that it would need to run more than the usual seven days for a move request. I would guess that most of the people who are going to participate will say their piece within the first 24 hours, and that by the end of seven days, any points to be made will be dwindling into mere repetition. There is a procedure for extending the period if participants believe that more time is needed. bd2412 T 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can I place a bet on more than three weeks? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are people likely to have something new and remarkable to say at that point? Anyone can request an extension at the end of the first week. If discussion has not petered out by the end of the second, it will almost certainly be due to a small number of disputants talking in circles. bd2412 T 04:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- To avoid having disputants appearing to continue the discussion, when they are talking in circles around tangential points, I think that having respondents keeping to their section, as in Wikipedia arbitration cases, works well. It encourages participants to address points made by others, over addressing others directly. I sometimes try to do this. The worst thing is when individuals respond similarly to every opponent's !vote, and then compete to have the last word. Once that starts, it is hard to stop, because a non-response looks like silent yielding.
- I am expecting some new comments, and a lot of reflection of past comments. An RfC might encourage more comments from people who haven't commented previously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are people likely to have something new and remarkable to say at that point? Anyone can request an extension at the end of the first week. If discussion has not petered out by the end of the second, it will almost certainly be due to a small number of disputants talking in circles. bd2412 T 04:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can I place a bet on more than three weeks? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, since we've had the discussion at length before, and all past participants will be notified as soon as it begins, I don't see any reason at the outset that it would need to run more than the usual seven days for a move request. I would guess that most of the people who are going to participate will say their piece within the first 24 hours, and that by the end of seven days, any points to be made will be dwindling into mere repetition. There is a procedure for extending the period if participants believe that more time is needed. bd2412 T 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The draft looks good, but I'm going to hold off until tomorrow so I can make a couple last minute tweaks. Is there a reason we're keeping the discussion at a subpage and not the regular talk page? T|C18:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Tomorrow is good. The discussion is likely to be long and involved, and would overwhelm talk page discussion of topics unrelated to the page move. Also, once the discussion is concluded and closed, nothing needs to be done to archive it. bd2412 T 18:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- That makes sense. My concern is that it gets less attention on a subpage and I feel that hurts the chances of a successful request. T|C18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The request will be linked from a section the talk page, and the usual notice (including a link to the subpage) will be on the RM page. Also, all of the editors who have participated in the previous discussions will receive a talk page notification per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification (I believe NickCT will handle that), and all of the relevant Wikiprojects will be notified. bd2412 T 01:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with it belonging on a subpage. One of the reasons for negative feeling towards these repeated heavy RMs is that they disrupt the article talk page. Putting it on a subpage avoids that. A clear notice on the main talk page, with notification of all past participants, etc, will be good notification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- The request will be linked from a section the talk page, and the usual notice (including a link to the subpage) will be on the RM page. Also, all of the editors who have participated in the previous discussions will receive a talk page notification per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification (I believe NickCT will handle that), and all of the relevant Wikiprojects will be notified. bd2412 T 01:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- That makes sense. My concern is that it gets less attention on a subpage and I feel that hurts the chances of a successful request.
- Tomorrow is good. The discussion is likely to be long and involved, and would overwhelm talk page discussion of topics unrelated to the page move. Also, once the discussion is concluded and closed, nothing needs to be done to archive it. bd2412 T 18:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's fine. My concern is that after the last proposal, the closing admins presumed that "support" votes that did not mention a particular rationale presented for the move did not consider that a reason for retitling the page. Since several rationales are presented for the move, participants should not need to spell out every rationale in every vote, and a typical "support, common name" comment should not be read as somehow being in opposition to rationales like conciseness or naturalness. bd2412 T 04:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I just tweaked it [2]. Everything should be good to go, will post in 12 or so hours if no one objects. T|C05:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Bet the RM will go at least three weeks
Hello bd2412. You pinged me at
I note at this point that the RM discussion is more civil that I expected. Your discouragement of threaded discussion in the !voting sections I think has positively contributed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Two more days and I win! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone find the delay here a little odd? I can't get the panel to reply to my queries for a timeline. NickCT (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't find it odd at all. The delay last time was longer than this has been so far. bd2412 T 12:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I guess. It would be nice to get some feed back from them on timing. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would guess that the panel have encountered difficult nuances, such as how the majority waving to WP:COMMONNAME seem oblivious to the linked section pointing to policy on reliable sources, and then coming to an agreed position on the balance of such nuances. It would be odd if a the panel took longer than the discussion itself to find the discussion had a consensus. I fear that this is headed to another "no consensus". If that is the case, then I would suggest a traditional method that assists in finding consensus, which is to ask opposing sides to summarize the arguments of the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would guess that the panel have encountered difficult nuances, such as how the majority waving to
- I guess. It would be nice to get some feed back from them on timing. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't find it odd at all. The delay last time was longer than this has been so far. bd2412 T 12:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Upcoming attractions in DC
- Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
- Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.
Cheers,
To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Quite apart from any disagreements we may have regarding specific issues, I want to say that I appreciate the way you discuss. In so many cases, people get upset and things get out of control. You do not resort to the unpleasant approach that some others seem to employ. And that's worthy of mention. Omnedon (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate that. I prefer to avoid interpersonal drama - it weakens stronger arguments. bd2412 T 01:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sophomore
I don't want to jump in on this without bouncing it off someone and thought you would be a good person to check with.
There are currently articles for both Junior (education) and Senior (education).
Right now, Sophomore (education) gets redirected back to Sophomore.
The articles for Junior and Senior, as it relates to education are a little thin, but could at least be used as a starting place for h articles to go to clear the disambiguation.
This is just my opinion on things.
Ulric1313 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @ 12:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Which is the primary topic for sophomore - Sophomore year - the second year of higher education in the American education system? The Sophomore page previously mentioned both high school and higher education in America. I couldn't work out which term, the second year at university or the second year at high school was the primary term, which is why I made a dab page. SilkTork ✔Tea time22:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Which is the primary topic for sophomore -
- Copying this discussion to Talk:Sophomore. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand what you are asking for. Also, I am going to be away for a few days, and may not be able to attend to anything for that time. bd2412 T 11:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
about a article
hi dfrr here look at this article and see what it needs also leave a message on my talk page about it too
thank you & have a great dayDfrr (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (Talk to me:-))
Re: Incoming links
Thanks for your notice. But the huge amount of incoming links to Song Qian is caused by the server lag of Template:People of Eastern Wu, which I updated immediately after I changed Song Qian to a disambiguation page. I can do nothing now except for waiting. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know - I do appreciate your addressing the template. Please make sure to check again after the server updates, in case there are any straggler direct links. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, BD2412. Today I found that there were still 96 incoming links to Song Qian at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/May 2015 after I moved Song Qian to Song Qian (Eastern Wu) and changed it to a disambiguation page on 19 April 2015. It's unbelievable that the sever lag had not been solved for 11 days. It seems that, to update the links, those articles with Template:People of Eastern Wu have to be edited at least once for whatever reason. I just edited 86 articles with that template (such as this) and finally solved Song Qian's incoming-links issue. What's wrong with Wikipedia's server and why should we edit the articles with the template? I have not seen so serious lag before. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is a great annoyance, and one for which I regretfully have no explanation. I just fire up AWB and make a blank save and that does it, but it really should happen automatically. bd2412 T 15:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Kinky boots (boot) listed at Redirects for discussion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/40px-Information.svg.png)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kinky boots (boot). Since you had some involvement with the Kinky boots (boot) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
HRC re-name
Hi bd2412, in case you didn't know, I just want to bring to your attention that several pertinent changes were apparently made to the article title policy from June 1, 2014 until April 24, 2015, which I found today in this diff. Also, from April 1, 2014 thru May 30, 2014, some further edits were made to that policy. Here's an overall diff from April 1, 2014 to April 24, 2015.
Incidentally, (assuming you weren't already aware), a thoughtful oppose has already been prepared for the impending move request. See User:Wasted Time R/Sandbox/hrc rm10 oppose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, he makes some good points. Of course, no one is arguing that "Rodham" is never used. The contention here is that it's not the best title, by a number of measures. bd2412 T 12:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think it's significant that the "nutshell" for the article title policy has changed since the last move request began? It previously said: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Now it says: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Conciseness, precision, and naturalness are all new in the nutshell, and they seem to all support HC instead of HRC. That is, HC is more concise, no less precise, and (being more concise and more normal) it is what people would more naturally search for.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not just what people would search for, it is what they do search for! bd2412 T 17:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The nutshell is part of the policy, it seems to me. So my comments will probably emphasize this change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not just what people would search for, it is what they do search for! bd2412 T 17:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think it's significant that the "nutshell" for the article title policy has changed since the last move request began? It previously said: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Now it says: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Conciseness, precision, and naturalness are all new in the nutshell, and they seem to all support HC instead of HRC. That is, HC is more concise, no less precise, and (being more concise and more normal) it is what people would more naturally search for.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
“ | Support Move: During the past year or so, the article title policy has evolved a bit, including the nutshell at the top. The nutshell previously said: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Now the emphasis is different: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Conciseness, naturalness, and precision are all new in the nutshell, and they clearly support Hillary Clinton ("HC") instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton ("HRC"). That is, HC is more concise, no less precise, and (being more concise and more normal) it is what people much more naturally search for (as User:BD2412 has shown).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC) | ” |
- I don't want to create the impression that I am running this show - my goal was to help wind it up and then let others argue it out. You can actually go ahead and add this rationale to the language of the move request now, and leave a note to User:Euryalus asking to place your vote, as he has volunteered to monitor this discussion as a neutral admin. bd2412 T 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, sorry to complicate things. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- No worries - I can assure you, this situation always manages to complicate itself! bd2412 T 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk page not moved.
Hi. I noticed that
) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)- Done, thanks. I had asked the stewards to move the article because its edit history precludes admins from moving it; I noted that subpages had already been moved, but did not make such a notation about the talk page. bd2412 T 19:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Clinton RM needs a big sign not to reply in the Survey section ...
Hey, could you or someone put a big very visible notice not to reply or counter-argue in the Survey section, and to post all counterpoints in Discussion? Already two people made that mistake, and since we've got so many rookies, the Survey section is going to be overrun with threads. Softlavender (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Modification of the Clinton move request page
Hey, on
Territory (geographic region)
I suggest you go ahead with your merger proposal. Apuldram (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have also proposed to merge 12:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Just Between Us (disambiguation)
Just a note because you contributed to the MfD discussion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Just Between Us (disambiguation) has been procedurally closed and a new discussion has been created at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Between Us (disambiguation). North America1000 13:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
Message added 22:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{
Separating !vote from discussion
Moved to
21:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)HRC Move Request question
Sheesh dude, bouncing Wiki balls? I think that gave me a little buzz or something. In any case, what do we do about
- That is support #41, it's been blocked as likely sockpuppet. I agree 100% with DD2K that it needs to be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done, but isn't this the sort of request that should be going to the admins who have volunteered to monitor the discussion? bd2412 T 02:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry dude. I saw it awhile ago when I looked through the contribs and saw the visited blue link to the RM. I wasn't going to do it, so put it off. Then I remembered again, and just thought I would drop you a note. Didn't mean anything by it though. Thanks. talk) 02:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's fine. It just seems awkward because I am WP:INVOLVED (it would be the same if I was addressing a sockpuppet on the other side). On the other hand, I am strongly compartmentalized - on Wiktionary (where there is a much smaller admin community), I frequently close deletion discussions that I have participated in, and have closed more than a few going the opposite way from my own vote. Cheers! bd2412 T02:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's fine. It just seems awkward because I am
- Sorry dude. I saw it awhile ago when I looked through the contribs and saw the visited blue link to the RM. I wasn't going to do it, so put it off. Then I remembered again, and just thought I would drop you a note. Didn't mean anything by it though. Thanks.
- Done, but isn't this the sort of request that should be going to the admins who have volunteered to monitor the discussion? bd2412 T 02:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is support #41, it's been blocked as likely sockpuppet. I agree 100% with DD2K that it needs to be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Avars link
Hi, could you revert and correct your multiple AWB edits linking to "Avars (Caucasus)" instead to "Pannonian Avars"? I thought to do it by myself, but there too many. Thanks.--Crovata (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why are these incorrect? The impression from the disambiguation page is that Pannonian Avars are the modern group, and the middle-ages references are all Caucasian. It is standard practice when a page is moved and a disambiguation page put in its place to re-route all existing links to the move target. Once that is done, you can surely go through those and pick out any that should be pointed elsewhere. bd2412 T 19:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, I see. I think it was the other way around when I started the task. bd2412 T 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You're invited to join WikiProject United States Constitution!
![]() |
You are invited to join here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may introduce themselves on the talk page .
|
We have lots of work to do! CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have added the project template to all of the articles in the "constitutional clauses" category. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please be careful- Justin Trudeau page was damaged
Hi there!
While viewing Justin Trudeau I noticed 2 images had their syntax damaged by leaving out an initial "[" which occured with your edit, which are now fixed. You do so many edits (that I won't check) I trust it is not common. Carry on the good work-AWB and you must be awesome!
Regards DadaNeem (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
All good! DadaNeem (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom for deletion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpenters Arms 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.
Persondata RfC
Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —
Move review for The Doctor (Doctor Who)
An editor has asked for a Move review of The Doctor (Doctor Who). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
21:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
"Faroese Islanders"
You moved this article following an RM. Sadly, you moved it to the wrong title. The proposed title was Faroe Islanders. These people are never called "Faroese Islanders", even though the adjective is "Faroese". This mirrors "Shetland Islanders" and the like. Please correct this error. RGloucester — ☎ 02:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What you said
"this situation always manages to complicate itself!" 👻Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. bd2412 T 04:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- A microcosm of life. :-). Hang in there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar for you
![]() |
The Monumental Barnstar | |
) 15:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks - a wide array of other adjectives have been directed at it, but this is the best. bd2412 T 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Been a while since I checked in on this debate. Just saw the result. I give you joy of a successful close. Restores my faith in the process a little bit after last year's shenanigans. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
National guard
Hello. What do you make of
- I had not thought about it, but it does seem like a kind of thing. bd2412 T 01:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Mlpearc
Hi,
I recently saw your block of Mlpearc for vandalism. I checked over the edits and don't see any vandalism. Was this in error? If so, please be more careful in the future. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I fixed a link to the disambiguation page, 21:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Block on Mlpearc
Hi. Can you please unblock this user and note that it was not "vandalism"? From what I can tell, you have a disagreement on a particular link and decided to revert a revert and then block the user. That seems highly inappropriate and not in line with the
) 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)- The block was expressly only in place until the editor responded, and was been lifted immediately when he did. This is not a "disagreement" over a link, but a clearly noted disambiguation link repair, for which 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but everyone makes mistakes, and blocking someone with a clean block log and nearly 38,000 edits over something so trivial is a bit disappointing, when it was done without warning. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your statements confirm that the block was not appropriate. Thank you for removing it promptly, but I'd encourage avoiding such blocks all together in the future. Not only were you involved in the dispute with the user, they only made one offending edit that hardly warranted a block - also your reason of ") 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you, it is a tactic sneaky vandals use. But said vandals aren't experienced editors, and even if they are, you can't just pull the trigger on one incident for an experienced editor. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at
Disambiguation review!
Heya, I hope you're well! I wanted to let you know that WMFers want to take a look at disambiguation as an experience, and I immediately thought to put them in touch with you - so you will be reached out to soonish. I suspect they'll want to talk to other fabulous disambiguators of different language communities. AFAIK right now the goal is just to learn about disambiguation before coming to any conclusions. I have no idea what the time frame is though - might be a few days or a couple of weeks before they reach out, so just wanted to let you know. Hope you all are well otherwise! Cheers, -Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Horn (instrument)
Please stop blindly replacing this with a link to French horn. There are many horns that are not French horns and without clearer indication it is often a mistake to assume that is what was meant. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Very well, but any notation of a horn in a symphony or concerto is going to intend the French horn unless another type of horn is specified in the notation. In any case, isn't 03:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not every horn is a French horn
A hornplayer is often able to play not only the valved French horn but also the natural horn. How can we solve that? "Horn (instrument)" left it open. (If you guess that I think the page move was a big mistake you guess right.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: sorry I didn't see the above, feel supported --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: I fixed one instance where automatically replacing "horn (instrument)" by "French horn" changed an image file name. I have no time for more of the kind. Please check yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
ps: Links to Natural horn are intended. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which one was the image file? Also, note that up until this week, Horn (instrument) was a redirect to French horn, so all of these links were already pointing to French horn; all I did was change the links to point directly, rather than indirectly, to their previous destination. bd2412 T 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that you have good intentions, - you can't help that the move was unhelpful. I think I secretly hoped that by some miracle it would go away. Imagine something general - example "keyboard instruments" - being moved to something special - example "piano", and then all occurrences of the general changed to specific: no more harpsichord, piano-forte, clavichord, organ. The Baroque and Classical period had no French horn, - in all compositions by Bach, Mozart etc, it's nonsense. Most professional hornists are able to play both and should not be restricted to just one. As a redirect, the reader could at least see that originally the general term was meant, - "French horn" is no improvement where it's not "French horn" but "horn". - Some discussions should not be left to "consensus", - right or wrong are also criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have created Draft:Horn (instrument) to cover this, although most of the information is taken directly from French horn, which does seem to cover the field in terms of the history of these instruments. It seems to me that the French horn is just a technological advancement on the natural horn, and would therefore be, at least, able to be substituted for it for any piece that was written for the French horn. bd2412 T01:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have created
- I don't doubt that you have good intentions, - you can't help that the move was unhelpful. I think I secretly hoped that by some miracle it would go away. Imagine something general - example "keyboard instruments" - being moved to something special - example "piano", and then all occurrences of the general changed to specific: no more harpsichord, piano-forte, clavichord, organ. The Baroque and Classical period had no French horn, - in all compositions by Bach, Mozart etc, it's nonsense. Most professional hornists are able to play both and should not be restricted to just one. As a redirect, the reader could at least see that originally the general term was meant, - "French horn" is no improvement where it's not "French horn" but "horn". - Some discussions should not be left to "consensus", - right or wrong are also criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the approach, - when finished that information should leave the "French horn" article. The French horn is a technological advancement of the natural (not an improvement in all aspects), as the piano is a from the harpsichord, - we would/should still not say that Bach composed for piano, - he knew (early) piano and didn't like it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- ) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- If one of you would like to file an RM to move it over the existing Horn (instrument) (or boldly move it there), I would be gratified. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- ) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Graham, do you hear us? A move is wanted, and I think it should be uncontroversial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Once that is done, I can go back and turn my disambiguation fixes back into links to 14:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Graham, do you hear us? A move is wanted, and I think it should be uncontroversial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Graham helped me with moving, for example List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function. If he isn't around, we can request an uncontroversial move. - Don't change all French horn back, some may actually be an improvement ;) - Let's wait with the other redirects until this move is done, thanks for looking into the problem! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Graham87 01:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will take a leisurely stroll through my previous changes this weekend and turn the generic uses back to Horn (instrument). bd2412 T 01:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Graham87 01:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Graham helped me with moving, for example
EddieSegoura Ban Appeal
Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Affect Co., Ltd.
Hi BD2412. I read your post on Japanese Wikipedia.
- Thanks. This seems to be in the realm of companies that are fairly productive, but only exist as middlemen. bd2412 T 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Weightlifting
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1d/Information_icon4.svg/48px-Information_icon4.svg.png)
Hello, BD2412. It has been over six months since you last edited your
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at
{{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Weightlifting}}
, paste it in the edit box at this linkThanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Lego Minifigures (theme)
Why you erase the information that I put in the page of Lego Minifigures (theme). By Pie House — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pie House (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- You did not add any information; you merely made a large number of useless disambiguation links, including linking words like "of" and "the". bd2412 T 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Exhaustion doctrine
There is a tag at the top of
There ought to be a WP institutionalized way to get comparative law input from fellow WPians in other countries == at least UK and Canada.
- -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Horn physics
- Moved to Talk:Horn (instrument).
Move(s) of "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"
BD, greetings.
I wonder if I could make a suggestion without meaning offense?
The page's move not that important an issue (perhaps, you and I have just a different understanding and liking on how to perform disambiguations), but it might be a
Sorry for taking up your time, MinorStoop (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- My edit summary was actually a bit longer than that, but was cut off. However, 19:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- No big deal; I may have been oversensitive on disagreements. MinorStoop (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)