Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Misplaced Pages Community. BD2412
Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind:
I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek").
It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page.
The supreme standard for these placenames is WP:USPLACE, which I quote: If more than one place within the same county has the same name, and neither is the primary topic, specify the type of local government unit in parentheses before the comma (e.g., Callicoon (CDP), New York and Callicoon (town), New York, but not "Callicoon, New York (CDP)"). Since WP:CONLIMITED notes that localised discussions can't overturn project consensus, I'll continue moving USPLACE violations when I find them. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I answered on your talk page, but basically the short answer is that I am concerned about the disambiguation issue, not the page name issue. bd2412T 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please help
Dear BD2412, could you please check the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder) and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a ... I do not even have words. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. Thak you. RRWM (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is really outside of my area of expertise. Cheers! bd2412T 00:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
succession templates
Hi BD2412, I get the impression you were trying to change something in the succession templates for the CRT (Chongqing Rail Transit) system, but I'm not sure what you were trying to do. You also mentioned the LUL system, which is in London, so completely unrelated. But if you need any help, let me know, I'm very familiar with these things so perhaps I can help. Azylber (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. The terminal stop on this particular line is Daxuecheng Station (Chongqing), but there are no working instructions for making the link point to this disambiguated page, so the result displays like it currently appears at pages like Qixinggang Station. Fixing this display while bypassing the disambiguation link would be great. Cheers! bd2412T 12:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok. No problem. That can be fixed very easily, but not in the template Template:S-line/CRT right/1. To fix that type of problem, you need to edit this other template: Template:CRT stations. I've already fixed the problems, and reverted your changes in CRT right. Have you touched any other templates? Those changes would need to be reverted too. Azylber (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Nope, that was it. There really needs to be a more intuitive system for fixing disambiguation links in these templates, particularly those caused when a previously non-ambiguous page is moved in favor of a disambiguation page (which is what happened in this instance). bd2412T 00:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
It might not be very intuitive to disambiguators, but it is the simplest way to deal with this issue, and we don't have many pages needing disambiguation anyway. We can take care of it perfectly well within the trains wikiproject. If you decentralise the source for station names and article names relationship for each system, you're making everything else a lot more complicated, adding unnecessary parameters here and there and duplicating information. Seriously, a lot of thought has been put into this, and I don't think it makes sense to make everything a lot more complicated for the people working in this wikiproject, just for the sake of making things slightly easier for disambiguators that are not familiar with these templates. And really not much help is needed from disambiguators with these articles, as there is not that much disambiguation work to do in this wikiproject anyway. I hope this makes sense Azylber (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Good work!
Is that sweet bean!?!
For the positive work of redirecting three disambigious pages to Asian American article, I present to you this frozen dessert. May it fuel you in your future editing of articles that fall within the scope of WP:USAA. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an editor who needs guidance on appropriately creating disambiguation pages and appropriately using hatnotes
Hello, BD2412. You may remember me from this discussion at Talk:Sexuality (disambiguation) when it was simply Talk:Sexuality. As I consider you an expert on disambiguation matters on Misplaced Pages, having seen you around and dealing with such matters, I am wondering if you feel that there is any way that you can help Jarble understand when to appropriately create a disambiguation page and when to appropriately add a hatnote. The editor often overtags, overlinks, adds inappropriate and/or redundant tags, links or hatnotes, and also often creates needless/redundant disambiguation pages. If you look at his talk page, you will see that he has been repeatedly advised and/or warned not to do these things.
The edit history of the Male genitalia page and of the Female genitalia page, including today, also show Jarble's odd interpretation of what should be a disambiguation page. Those pages redirect to Sex organ because the male genitalia and female genitalia are sex organs and that article already disambiguates the different types of sex organs; therefore, what Jarble has tried to maintain at the Male genitalia and Female genitalia pages is completely redundant, as I've stated when reverting him on those matters, but he doesn't seem to understand that. And here and here are examples of his redundant/excessive hatnotes that I've reverted at the Sex organ article.
Furthermore, when he creates disambiguation pages, or wants something disambiguated, it's mostly because he's trying to have Misplaced Pages be more inclusive of non-human animal aspects. I don't know what else to state to him about these page/formatting issues. But because of the new notification system, the fact that I've mentioned and linked his name above, he will be aware of this message I've left you here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Mainly, I'm just trying to reduce the prevalence of misleading redirect pages on Misplaced Pages (where there isn't a clear primary topic for a particular redirect page). I created those two disambiguation pages because it was apparent to me that those disambiguation pages had no clear primary topic (i. e., it isn't clear which use of the word was most common in the English language).
I think I understand your point now. Disambiguation pages should only be created when there is no clear "primary topic" for a given term, since the disambiguation pages could potentially be confusing for readers of Misplaced Pages, and distract them from the primary topic.
Also, I think I may be misunderstanding the definition of "primary topic" as it applies to Misplaced Pages. Does it refer to the most common use of a term in the English language, or does it refer to something entirely different? Jarble (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
In the cases I have complained about with regard to your edits, you are "fixing" things that don't need fixing and are not misleading. There isn't anything at all misleading about male genitalia and female genitalia redirecting to the Sex organ article, as I've clearly explained above. Creating a Male genitalia disambiguation page and a Female genitalia disambiguation page is completely redundant to the Sex organ article; that article already includes and therefore disambiguates those things. Like I stated, I honestly don't know what else to state to you about these page/formatting matters. I am hoping that someone can finally get you to understand what you are doing wrong. You still overlink, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Accidental overlinking isn't always easy to avoid. I don't usually read every single link in an article before adding another link, since it would be extremely tedious to do so, and I wish there were an easier way to detect redundant links in an article. Are there any automated tools that I can use to find redundant links in an article, and avoid the accidental creation of redundant links? Jarble (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, please review WP:DABCONCEPT. We do not create disambiguation pages for broad topics. The existence of a disambiguation page implies that the terms on the page are wholly unrelated, except for a shared name - for example, the planet Mercury, the element Mercury, and the god Mercury. They can not be collectively referred to as "Mercuries" for any reason other than to group together all things referred to by the word "Mercury". By contrast, while it is true that "male genitalia" might refer to human genitals or animal genitals, it is still possible to write a single article on the general concept of genitals which encompasses both kinds due to relationships between them other than the descriptive term alone. That, in a nutshell, is what it means for term to be WP:DABCONCEPT to one another. In this case, Jarble is correct that Sex organ covers all of the topics regarding terms which could be referenced as "Male genitalia". It would be another matter if there was a planet by that name, or a notable album, although even then the primary topic would be the collection of uses covered at Sex organ. bd2412T 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Link to resolved discussion for archive. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
DC WikiSalon on May 24
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill 18:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!
organized by Wiki Project Med On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Misplaced Pages meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.
Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.
If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi BD2412! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Misplaced Pages using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Misplaced Pages and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Amakasu clan
Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amakasu clan. This explains the newest changes at Amakasu clan. As context, you may want to know that I created the disambiguation page in response to a good suggestion which you can read for yourself in the AfD thread. I did post link at Talk:Amakasu clan#AfD discussion, but I guess I should have made further changes after the AfD was closed. --Ansei (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
In other words, the two fictional/gaming clans are the only groups by that name? bd2412T 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, for example, the Amakasu are not listed in Edmund Papinot's Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie du Japon; Papinot, (2003). Nobiliare du Japon, p. 2.
There are a few individual historical figures with this name, for example, Amakasu Kagemochi; but, for example, there is no 甘糟氏 listed in Nihon jinmei daijiten. --Ansei (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, I reverted your addition of your new article Efforts to impeach Barack Obama to the "See also" section of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, without having space in my edit summary to fully explain why. My thinking is that if you were to include a source for an effort to impeach Barack Obama which was based on doubts about his citizenship, then it would be useful to have it as a See also in the conspiracy theories article. But as long as that part, the relevant part, is only an unsourced statement, I don't see that it adds anything to what can already be read in the longer article. Linking to the longer article in Efforts to impeach Barack Obama (as you do in its text) is very appropriate, but not so much the other way around, IMO. But perhaps you're still adding references? Please don't be offended, and feel free to add it back if you disagree. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC).
One of the first things I found in beginning this article is this petition to impeach based on the citizenship issue. However, I am still searching for sources for each of the various points for which politicians and commentators have raised as possible grounds for impeachment. bd2412T 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Partially disambiguated titles
Hello BD2412. See User talk:In ictu oculi#Partially disambiguated titles. Without wanting to steer the main discussion over to IIO's page, can I ask you a similar question? Do you see the proposed new language for WP:DAB as preventing article names like Cork (city)? That example is on your user page. I see no urgency to quickly closing the discussion, but if the ratio doesn't change, it seems likely that there will be support for some kind of change in WP:DAB. There may still be some room for negotiation, because I'm unclear on whether all participants understand the proposal in the same way. For instance, Neelix and IIO are both supporters, but they seem to have different concepts. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My reading of that language is that it would not specifically require Cork (city) to be moved because there is no other "city" named Cork. However, there may be other pages with the disambiguator (city) to which the policy would apply. bd2412T 02:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
moved per CSD request?
11:53, 3 June 2013 BD2412 (talk | contribs) m . . (10,157 bytes) (0) . . (BD2412 moved page Maroon (color) to Maroon: per CSD request) (undo | thank)
Hi BD2412,
You moved Maroon, citing "per CSD request". What does this mean? Was there a discussion or proposal or request somewhere? It is not obvious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Per the request in this version of the page. So far as I can tell, there was never any discussion about moving the page anywhere. Per the log, User:Anthony Appleyard boldly moved the disambig page to this title, and User:Red Slash partially reverted, but was unable to finish the job without administrative assistance. Since this is a routine part of the WP:BRD cycle (and since the initial move created hundreds of disambiguation links with no apparent plan to deal with them), I was pleased to offer the assistance requested. This is the point at which a discussion should begin, if there are editors who do not like the state of affairs as they had existed for the previous three years. Cheers! bd2412T 02:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was used to "Maroon (color)", and had not had a look at the log for the page. I was thinking that there was a discussion somewhere that I couldn't find. I am not unhappy with anything here. Thanks again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to me so I got to see this, BD2412. Maroon has been redirecting to the color article at maroon (color) for almost three years, and so I listed a move from maroon (color) to maroon (which again, has been redirecting to maroon (color) for almost three years without problem or complaint) at WP:RMT. Unfortunately, an administrator there decided to instead move maroon (disambiguation) to the plain title, so I reverted that move and put the CSD on maroon. Thank you, BD2412, and hopefully I'll learn my lesson and avoid WP:RMT in cases like this. Red Slash 03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill 20:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
National Film Award redirects
Why change links from 'National Film Award' to 'National Film Award (India)' when it redirects right back to 'National Film Award'? BollyJeff | talk 13:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
But the India one still redirects. I hope someone knows how much work they created and got consensus first. I did not see any discussions. BollyJeff | talk 13:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I sympathize. As a disambiguator, I see these changes made every single day, sometimes to articles or redirects with thousands of incoming links. I do not know enough about the topic to presume that there is a primary meaning to which the link should redirect, so I can only fix the links. I point them through a redirect intentionally so that they will be easy to find if they need to be changed again later (for example, if National Film Awards is moved to National Film Awards (India). bd2412T 14:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
To clarify
I wasn't referring to your question as "bullshit" in the SPI discussion. Rather the ridiculous quacking duck situation of DiogoTome having the same childish attitude and running straight to ANI with his first edits as his brother. No offense to you intended at all. Toddst1 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Tomé
Hi BD, I appreciate your entries at the DanielTom SPI page. My entries there have been for sole purpose of having the misapplied "sockpuppetry" label removed from Daniel's old account User:Daniel Tomé, out of fairness to him. Thank you for any help as I'm out of my comfort zone with the SPI processes, and there seem to be several Admins determined to work against my effort. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
When multiple admins tell you you're off the mark, that's usually a good hint that your effort is grossly misguided. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Todd, no one has given me an explanation how "sockpuppet" can be reasonably applied, including you. (Your only justification was the single re-use of the old username that you linked. I showed you how Daniel corrected the posting username 2 mintues after that post, indicating clearly it was inadvertent use of his old username, and attempting to hide or conceal nothing.) I asked you how it is reasonable therefore, what justification is there, to leave the "sockpuppet" label on that account. You didn't answer back. (Only your non-answer above, attempting to shame me, not on the issues or facts.) I don't have an answer from you or anyone how "sockpuppet" fairly applies, given the facts I've repeated more than once. (How about a reasonable answer to a reasonable question, in place of the "you're outnumbered" remark.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
What's more Todd, your "grossly misguided" is completely inappropriate and insulting, as my Qs here have been fair, honest, and in good faith. Perhaps you should dial your attacks and hostility down a bit. (Perhaps dial it down to zero, and try to help me here with a real answer.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, Todd. Daniel made a public user rename request. He corrected in 2 minutes an inadvertent use of his old username. That is the only basis (that single inadvertent use) that anyone, including you, has provided justifies "sockpuppet" label on his old account. His old account is his real life name. The facts show no attempt to conceal or deceive anyone. That meets neither the spirit nor the letter of WP:SOCKPUPPET. You keep arguing without arguments. What "several explanations" are you referring to? There has been only one, repeated by everyone (the single, inadvertent use of the old username, corrected by Daniel in 2 minutes). I've presented reasoned argument to you. You have presented only a wall of non-listening and non-responding. If you don't have anything substantive to say, they perhaps you shouldn't be responding. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Join us this Sunday for the Great American Wiknic!
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)
Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.
I have just restored the change of Carbonaceous to a dab page. Don't agree with that change. Although it is not very well developed at all, it is a better target for the incoming links than carbon and I think they should also be restored. SpinningSpark 19:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Since carbonaceous is merely an adjective describing carbon content, I would prefer to see carbonaceous redirected to Carbon, with the two short sentences now in the former article being merged into the latter (preferably with the addition of some sources). bd2412T 20:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you have to look beyond what the article is now and what it could become. The part of speech is really a side issue; the page could easily be renamed to a noun such as carbonaceous material, or carbonaceous rock, or carbonaceous mineral or something. Carbon is about the element and is not an especially helpful link for the vast majority of the incoming links it has/used to have. SpinningSpark 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
If the title to be developed is "carbonaceous something", then aren't we right back to the question of whether "carbonaceous" alone is ambiguous to whatever that something is, or to carbonaceous chondrite, carbonaceous film, carbonaceous soil, etc.? bd2412T 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article should not become a dicdef of carbonaceous anything. However, to my mind, there is a common enough thread between chondrites, hydrocarbon minerals (coal, oil, tar) and other mineralogical and geological subjects to be able to write a coherent article. SpinningSpark 23:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Top down legal guidance?
I'm researching in the area of cross border regulation of banks, and bankruptcy resolution (or other "prop up" techniques) for the large global banks (officially the Systemically Important Financial Institutions or SIFIs). Based on long tradition with some evolution the cross border regulation of banks has been via "memorandums of understanding" between country regulators and some attempt at harmonizing banking law (Basel I, II and III accords). Basel accords are voluntarily implemented and enacted into laws and regulations in each separate country. OK that was long winded, here is the question.
Were banking regulation to "go global" what legal models would it "go to school on"? As I understand it maritime law and perhaps airspace and outer space are subject to some types of international law? Are there any other international law areas that might be relevant as guiding models? What works? What hasn't?
Reminds me of the international standards game and ISO. Deadly slow and highly political...
Give me the scent to put me on the trail and this dog will hunt....Rick (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Rick. I very much doubt that there will be truly international regulation of banking laws in the foreseeable future, as this area is utterly occupied by treaty relations, and nations have many diverse and competing interests represented through those. Furthermore, the areas that you mentioned, maritime and airspace and outerspace, are also ultimately regulated by treaties, although these tend to be broad conventions signed on to by almost every country in the world. That said, however, banking is commerce, so any international regulation of banking would run along the lines of the World Trade Organization governance. bd2412T 02:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor
Hey BD2412
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
The problem with having a disambiguation page at this title is a bit more profound then that, since virtually every title on the page is a partial title match. Also, capitalization is a poor distinguishing characteristic for a title that could be searched with or without it. It would be reasonable to move the page to Natural history museum and leave the capitalized version as a redirect to it, but capitalized or not, the phrase seems to me to describe a concept with a primary meaning as set forth in the material that I have added to the page. bd2412T 02:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, I would tend to agree about the issue with capitalization (despite Science Museum having the same problem), but I'm mostly being the messenger. I don't know if you saw the discussion at Talk:Natural History Museum, London#Requested move that led to the move, but some argued (and may continue to argue) that Natural History Museum should be about the museum in London -- they probably wouldn't even consider that it should be a generic article about natural history museums. And I imagine had certain admins come across the move request first, the article might have even remained that way. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter
Expand Misplaced Pages's free knowledge with WDL resources!
Hi BD2412! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Misplaced Pages! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
RRsat page
Hello,
http://www.linkedin.com/company/rrsat/
The company would like to add a logo and some photos to it's wiki page. As you are the latest editor of the page, I thought I'd ask you first.
Please contact gili.k@rrsat.com for images.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdiCoh (talk • contribs)
Thanks, but I have no interest in this. My edit was to request the repair of an errant link to the disambiguation page AB. Please fix this if you can. Otherwise, please proceed with editing your page in accordance with WP:COI. Cheers! bd2412T 13:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing up country house for me. We had the issue of having articles on English country houses and Scottish country houses, but not having one on "just plain" country houses, so that country house had previously redirect to English country house, which was obviously incorrect. There was a discussion on the English country house talk page, and a disambiguation page was apparently the most easy solution, because no one wanted to return English country house back to Country house, where it had been to start with. Thanks again, though, for sorting it. RGloucester (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill 00:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a question
I noticed that you contributed to Template: OW a long time ago and I had a question about its use. According to WP: BLANKING users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page as I know, but once they do and the template is added are they allowed to then remove the template, or are they required to leave it there if they choose to remove the warnings, which is actually resulting in a user not being blocked. STATicmessage me! 05:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I created this template for old dynamic/public IP talk pages, where those who have edited the page in the past are unlikely to be looking at it again. bd2412T 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh its seemed to be a proper template to have on a user's talk page when they constantly remove warnings so Administrators reviewing the case at WP:AIV know that there are warnings in the talk page (in this case over 5 in less than a month). I mean receiving two final warnings within a day for personal attacks and not being blocked is pretty ridiculous. STATicmessage me! 15:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Clyde Duncan
If you'd checked the disambig page before deleting it, you'd see most of the incoming links where from the template footer, and virtually none of them where from articles. Most of the incoming links were to the cricketer, but I guess you know best. Thanks. Lugnuts 09:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a clear WP:TWODABS situation, for which a primary topic may be discernible. Therefore, I think I am correct in saying that we should have a discussion of such moves before implementing them. bd2412T 12:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You're invited to the Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon, part of a series of edit-a-thons organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum to add and expand articles about American art and artists on Misplaced Pages.
This event will include a catered lunch and special tours of the Luce Foundation Center for American Art and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
9:15 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, 2013 Smithsonian American Art Museum
Meet at G Street Lobby (9th St. & G St. NW, Washington, D.C.)
Possible hoax; unsourced BLP at best, none of the sources mention this person. Juan Ochoa Vasquez is not the same as Juan Vasquez, and even if the article referred to the former, it would still fail WP:GNG.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Speedied. This was created as an article on U.S. Tax Court judge Juan F. Vasquez. At some point an anon came by and changed it into an article on a hoax drug lord. Good catch. bd2412T 11:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It was actually reported to WP:BLP/N so it was noticed by someone else. In any case, glad you could fix it, and sorry for all the notice spam :\ §FreeRangeFrog 16:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the notice, without which I would not have know that there was a problem that needed fixing. Cheers! bd2412T 16:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I notice that early on in the history of the article, you "imported" information from the GSA site. I understand that the information in the GSA article is in the public domain... but I don't believe that means it can be copied into a Misplaced Pages article without attriubtion:
Even when material is not covered by copyright, it is still important to state its origin, including its authors or creators. Failure to include the origin of a work is misleading and also makes it more difficult for readers and editors to refer to the material's source. It may also violate the terms of the GFDL.
Thanks, but I'm not clear that this suffices. The attribution notice you've given suggests the article "incorporates" information form a public domain source... when in fact it replicates public domain information. Per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, the "Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more. Naming the author in the text allows the reader to see which words rely heavily on someone else, without having to search in the footnote"' or in this case, search the article for attribution. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As an intellectual property attorney, I can't see any legally significant difference between "incorporates" and "replicates" as used here. Since the lede and infobox are not from the GSA, it would be inaccurate to imply that there is nothing original to Misplaced Pages in this article. I contacted the GSA when I was preparing to upload all of their courthouse descriptions and informed them of my intended use, and how I planned to attribute the content, and they were fine with it. I have since created dozens, if not hundreds, of these articles in collaboration with hundreds of editors, and this is the first time I have heard any suggestion that the attribution provided is insufficient. On a side note, the GSA itself does not identify the actual authors of any of its articles, so there is no person to name. bd2412T 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 05:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Kelapstick recently fully protected this article due to a content dispute. The crux of the matter was an editor who kept expanding the plot well beyond the limits defined by WP:FILMPLOT, would not explain his actions, and would not discuss the matter on the talk page. However, the page is now fully protected with the inordinately long and terribly written plot summary in place. It needs to be reverted to the last stable version before the edit war. Kelapstick is on vacation, so I cannot ask him to do it. Would you mind taking a look? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambig contest
Although you can do this, please be aware that it will not change the list of 1,000 pages used for the challenge on the Toolserver page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of that. However, since Siam was already resolved, there would be no points to be gained from it anyway. I knocked out Real World right away so no one would be misled into thinking it was worth any points either. bd2412T 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill 04:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Reluctant Hero Attribution Problem
I noticed that the Campbell quote on the Reluctant Hero article is wrong. I checked the talk page on it and you said that you posted it to the article after you saw it in Hero With a Thousand Faces but you can't come up with a page number for it. I searched a PDF and my own physical copy of Hero With a Thousand Faces and can't find even the concept of reluctant hero in the book, let alone the quote in this article. Yes, refusal of the call is part of the hero's journey, but that doesn't make all heroes who refuse the call reluctant heroes any more than it makes all heroes belly of the whale heroes because they all end up in the belly of the whale at some point. To be honest, I don't think this concept of the reluctant hero is in Campbell's body of work at all. It might be a way that some others understand some of his concepts but I don't think he himself divided heroes into categories of either reluctant or adventuring at all.
I want to make sure I'm not missing something before I overhaul the article to fix the attribution error. I posted a message to the Joseph Campbell Foundation message boards asking for advice (free registration required to view the forum), since they know the subject matter better than I do. They published my edition of Hero With a Thousand Faces (it's a low traffic board though, they might not even respond).
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I'm planning to remove the quote and try to clean up the article on Monday unless a proper citation for the reference can be found or unless somebody asks me to hold off or something.
Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in this topic? -- A Certain White Cat 00:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on the entry for Richard H. Stern
bd, thanks for keeping an eye so far on the Wiki entry <Richard H. Stern>. Please continue to keep an eye on it for undocumented (largely undocumentable) remarks by persistent detractor GS. I would have sent you this by email but I misplaced your address. (Would you pl. send it at your convenience.)
There are still some undocumented slurs (with no refs). The two last sentences of the second para. are w/o citation; the subject does not have a full time academic career as the entry now suggests, and I wouldn't call it all that successful--anyway it's all undocumented and at least in part undocumentable (how can you tell what somebody hopes?). (Subject is more or less a full time practitioner, considering that he is 82.) Also, the subject is still a Professorial Lecturer in Law at GW, as far as I know—-contrary to the suggestion at the end of para. 3 that he vanished in 2012. Computer Law was not taught at GW in the spring of 2013, because the prof was in a hosp and rehab home for a while due to some injuries. He got better by June 2013, and Computer Law should resume in spring 2014 with all the new sec. 101 cases. Another minor correction--the correct title of the U of Minn position is _Distinguished_ Visiting Prof of Law, a title sometimes also used at GW I think, and in any case is accurate, not a made up puff.
(This item can be deleted once read.)
PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
POV dispute
Hi. I'm looking for an impartial view from a random experienced editor for this discussion, in which another editor insists on removing the second sentence in this section's opening paragraph. I'm getting seriously fatigued from the argument. Would you care to comment? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill 12:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The RfC about MOS:LQ still has an active notice in WP:CENT
1) My thanks for your commitment to shepherd Chelsea Manning. Neutral eyes and level heads are invaluable.
2) I think if you review the edit history for Chelsea Manning, you'll note that immediately after the move from Bradley Manning was made to Chelsea Manning,User:David Gerard protected the move. Now, without considering whether the proper name for this article is Bradley or Chelsea I think we can all agree to two basic facts. A - The move to Chelsea was controversial (as evidenced by all the ensuing controversy), and B - There was little or no prior talkpage discussion supporting the move. I'd humbly suggest that instantly protecting obviously controversial moves is not wise. Any chance you could move back to Bradley Manning, then wait to see if consensus arises for a move to Chelsea?
I wouldn't usually badger someone to do this, but my feeling is that this is making WP look kinda silly, which disappoints me...... I worry that if we wait 7 days for consensus to develop, that will be 7 days of looking silly. NickCT (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has looked sillier than that for longer periods (and, frankly, it is not a wholly implausible title). In the long run, it will not matter where this article sits for the duration of the move discussion. bd2412T 22:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Not wholly implausible no.
Ah well. Can't blame me for trying. Well done practicing your adminly restraint. It doesn't strike me that User:David Gerard did the same. NickCT (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you should wait for a REAL consensus after longer than seven days. Seven days is not enough, even when amount of votes is humongous. Probably 14 or 20 days or until votes die down? --George Ho (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The matter is well-publicized. Editors should certainly be able to get around to expressing their opinions within the next seven days. bd2412T 11:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Why should the status of the matter be relevant? I believe that more voices shall be heard. How about ten days? --George Ho (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The standard period of time for a move request to remain open is seven days. However that determination came about, it reflects the consensus of the community that seven days is the right period of time to give the community a fair opportunity to comment on a proposal. I do note that it creates such an opportunity for editors who only edit one day a week, or only edit on the weekends. If there is a consensus in the community to extend this discussion beyond that point, I will be bound by that, but what editor will not be able to find this well-publicized discussion by next Thursday? bd2412T 17:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Then where to propose an extension? --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
On the talk page, in the current RM discussion. It is awfully premature to propose that, in my opinion. For all we know, the discussion will fizzle out by Monday. bd2412T 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
"Denied"
Just a note on tone, bd2312. No one put you in charge, you volunteered to keep an eye on developments. If you cannot do that without running away with yourself and a sense of authority, you should step away from the task.
It is not your place to "deny" anything. The question was directed towards the community. --RA (✍) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The question was directed to ANI, after I had volunteered to take this matter on. I see no one else supporting the notion of an early close there. Of course, my decision on that point be overruled by a consensus of the community, or of administrators. Cheers! bd2412T 11:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, there's a at least one other in the same thread. Though, the discussion seems to have moved towards a technical revert for now and to continue discussion on the merits of each name. I hope you will be more observant when it comes to closing the RM.
In any case, I hope you accept it is not your place to "deny" anything, let alone community discussion. And I hope you will strike the word "denied" here. It gives a poor impression. --RA (✍) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If you believe that someone else in that same ANI thread supported early closure, please point that out to me, as I do not see it. I can assure you, however, that I will close this RM with the utmost observance, as I have done with many contentious discussions before. Cheers! bd2412T 12:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87 replied to you, at 02:13, 23 August 2013, saying "I think an early close would be the right thing to do, do you really want this mess to drag out for the next 7 days?" I'm surprised you missed it. You replied at 02:45, 23 August 2013 only one comment later in the same sub-thread of comments.
But the reason I posted here was about the word "denied". It stymies discussion. I'd appreciate it, if you'd strike it, or at least agree to avoid declaring something is "denied" (by who?) so early in a discussion. --RA (✍) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Closing the RM early would also stymie discussion, would it not? bd2412T 13:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Points I made in my rationale at the ANI thread was that (a) the RM discussion was very highly contributed to; (b) with high degree of homogeneity in !votes on both sides; and (c) that I don't foresee any new insights arriving. In that context I said I didn't see any benefit to continuing the discussion for a week and asked others for their opinion.
The purpose of discussion is to sample views and develop ideas and approaches. When discussion becomes repetitious, it can be wrapped up without it being stymied: it is already at a place where it is no longer progressing. You attempted to wrap up discussion without waiting for it to develop or see what direction it would go or how it would progress.
Do you see the difference? Your rationale was based on your diktat (wrapped up in the first-person-plural). My rationale was based on the likelihood any further benefit coming from the discussion. I also framed my post as a question ("...can the RM at the Manning page be wrapped up early per WP:IAR?"). I asked others if it should be wrapped up. You framed your post as a decree ("Denied."). You closed the discussion to input of others. I invited the input of others. You didn't wait for discussion to develop before closing it down. My question as to ask if discussion had already reached it's useful end.
Maybe in future you'll remember this conversation and be less quick to use words like "denied" so early in a discussion. Best of luck, --RA (✍) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your civility in discussing the topic, and your well wishes. Cheers! bd2412T 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
And you. Plus, whatever about the reason I posted here, you're doing a good job of holding a line in your approach to this case.
I don't expect you to move the article back. If I was playing your role in this discussion I couldn't. Wheel warring would be worse an outcome. There has been a touch of it already and another admin did a very good job of biting his tongue and keeping his cool in the face of it.
But, in the role I am adopting (without having put my admin hat on), I feel free to highlight that this RM should not be from the position the article is currently in. So, if I at times you find my finger in your face over the course of the next week, remember that doesn't necessarily mean I am pointing it at you. And again, good luck --RA (✍) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Manning requested move
In case it's helpful, I've started a tally of comments from the survey section only. In almost all cases I've just copied the signature, which may or may not correspond with the user name, so if you want to find the account, you may have to go back into the page to click on the sig.
Please feel free to copy, edit, use, or ignore, and thanks again for stepping forward to oversee the close. SlimVirgin 17:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd already started my own! I'm glad you've made one too, though, as we can check them against each other. (Note, I intentionally removed the struck !votes, as they were not replaced with !votes for the opposing position). Cheers! bd2412T 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yours looks good. I've also removed the struck votes; I placed those names in the unclear/undecided section. I've left a few comments after the accounts/IPs that have made only a few edits, or have been only sporadically used, but I only checked the obvious-looking ones, so there may be others. I'll probably keep my tally going (although it's a bit of a job so I won't promise), and as I said you're welcome to cross-reference or ignore completely. SlimVirgin 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yours has some that I missed, and I certainly appreciate it. Thanks! bd2412T 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Knowing that there's going to be a move review no matter how it's closed, don't you think a three-admin close would be ideal in this case. I don't doubt your credentials or sincerity, but this is bound to end in controversy. It's inevitable. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Zurich
Hey - just wondering why you didn't discount the WP:OFFICIALNAME-based !votes in your analysis. Two of the support !voters relied exclusively on that, with several others relying heavily on it. As you know, it's not a policy-based rationale for titles. Dohn joe (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It would not have changed the outcome. Also, which two? User:Casliber premised his vote on such a rationale; I see no other participant who did so. bd2412T 21:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Jacob Steven Smith could not have been more explicit. Also, Martinvl and Jeppiz both relied heavily on the "it's how they do it, so we should too" argument. Even bobrayner's "more accurate" !vote could be read that way - "Zurich" is an accurate spelling in many contexts, so calling the umlauted version "more accurate" may be an appeal to deferring to local usage as well. As for changing the outcome, if you knock off those first two, it's 7:4, which is now only 57% in support - which would seem more of a "no consensus" result. And if you further discount any of the other three I mentioned - even if only partially - that support gets even weaker. Dohn joe (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Zurich
Why did you close the RM so quickly? There was no real consensus and the arguments where mainly based on biased statistics (I was waiting a response from In ictu oculi). Can you please reopen it for at least a few days so we can discuss it more deeply? mgeotalk 21:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at 
