User:BD2412/Archive 001

Archives By topic (prior to June 1, 2009): Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th-5th Misc.-1st-2d-3d-4th/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd-3rd/Vandalism Dated (beginning June 1, 2009): 001-002-003-004-005-006-007-008-009-010-011-012-013-014-015 016-017-018-019-020-021-022-023-024-025-026-027-028-029-030 031-032-033-034-035-036-037-038-039-040-041-042-043-044-045 046-047-048-049-050-051-052-053-054-055-056-057 Cardozo BD- please help me restore the Cardozo ethnicity section- some knucklehead went in there and screwed the whole thing up (and I forgot to copy it).The Original Historygeek (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, looks like User:Magidin had the data and restored it- The Original Historygeek (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you As the tagging was done as a bit of a challenge to so many empty category talk pages - I really appreciate your narrowing the scope of the project tags at the supreme court categories - do you think there is any hope of the larger wider category being done by a bot at all? SatuSuro 23:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I'd worry that a bot could not correctly identify which project to associate a category with. bd2412 T 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Indeed I just had a peek at the USA category tree - it definitely looks like a human eye only project unfortunately - I have left comment at the USA project talk page about the template being out of date and not clear SatuSuro 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Radical factory Hi BD. Looking into a discussion of deleting the redirect 廾, I noticed that the only link to it (except those related to the discussion) is from the radical factory in your userspace. Several other entries in your table also have inter-language redirects or disambiguation pages with little or no linkage. Would you care to comment on the discussion or the general situation? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I haven't made any of those redirects, that I can recall. My view is that each one of the several hundred base radicals should have an article discussing not only the meaning of a given character, but also the history of its development (much like letters of the English alphabet). bd2412 T 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I only pointed it out because it looked like you would have a well informed opinion, as indeed you do. Your ultimate objective for such pages is a good one. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I dig that. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC) McLaren Your move of the racing article to the main namespace page was based on a discussion at Talk:McLaren (racing), and you apparently did not consult talk:McLaren (disambiguation), which was the current main topical article. On that page, I dealt with the various arguments - notably the issue of search topic data showed that twice as many people searching for the name were looking for the car, and not the racing group. I noted then that the opposition appeared to change their argument - always a relevant fact in a debate. It also now appears that the move was somewhat motivated by its linkage from the current featured article. In any case, I'd like it moved back. There is no reason why the racing outfit deserves canonical name recognition, and there is more on this at the disambiguation talk. Sorry we got our talk pages mixed up. Thanks, -Stevertigo 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC) McLaren (racing) Please don't go changing any more links, it is highly likely that the article will not be staying at McLaren (racing). --Falcadore (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC) The links are currently pointing to a disambiguation page, which is unacceptable. If McLaren (racing) is moved, they will at least already redirect to the correct page, which can easily be fixed by a bot. In the interim, pointing them to the page which provides information about the subject of the article is the only option. If you object to that, please take it up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links. bd2412 T 02:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC) My primary objection is that you a creating additional work for yourself and others, and chewing a very large amount of server space with additional revisions, as the move to McLaren (racing) has attracted universal condemnation and is likely to be reverted quickly. If you are fine with that then OK. --Falcadore (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If the article is renamed, the links will be solved with a redirect (and redirects are cheap). We can't have them pointing to the disambig page, at any rate, so this work will have to be done sooner or later. bd2412 T 06:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If you waited until later, no work would need to be done at all. McLaren will not be the disambig page for long. If you disagree, participate in the requested move discussions. --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Your move of the racing article to the main namespace page was based on a discussion at Talk:McLaren (racing), and you apparently did not consult talk:McLaren (disambiguation), which was the current main topical article. On that page, I dealt with the various arguments - notably the issue that search topic data showed that twice as many people searching for the name were looking for the car, and not the racing group. I noted then that the opposition appeared to change their argument - always a relevant fact in a debate. It also now appears that the move was somewhat motivated by its linkage from the current featured article. In any case, I'd like it moved back. There is no reason why the racing outfit deserves canonical name recognition, and my only interest in this deals with counterbalancing a likely fanboy effect. There is more on this at the disambiguation talk. Sorry we got our talk pages mixed up. Thanks, -Stevertigo 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure I see the benefit of stirring that pot again. I won't object if you move it, but I think it's fine where it is, given the overwhelming preponderance of links made to the site being for the racing team. bd2412 T 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I don't have move-over capability. What I can do is resubmit it for moving, and ask you to chime in there. -Stevertigo 19:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Please revert "Christian cult" move Please revert this procedural move: 9 June 2009 (Move log); 17:51 . . BD2412 ... moved Christian cult (disambiguation) to Christian cult (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages) (Deletion log); 17:51 . . BD2412 ... deleted "Christian cult" (G6: Deleted to make way for move) (Deletion log); 17:51 . . BD2412 ... restored "Christian cult" (14 revisions restored: per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages) (Deletion log); 18:01 . . BD2412 ... restored "Talk:Christian cult" (1 revision restored: per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages) Talk:Christian cult?; 18:05 . . (+217) . . BD2412 ... (Fixed per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages.) See Dekimasu's WP:RM report. You've been WP:GAMEd by Dbachmann, who was asked by Dekimasu, but refused to follow the move process for controversial articles:WP:NC#Controversial names: "Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed." Not following process results in a mess, and for the second time this procedural move has unintentionally broken many links: 17:51, 9 June 2009 BD2412 m (284 bytes) (moved Christian cult (disambiguation) to Christian cult: per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages) 7:31, 8 June 2009 Dbachmann (70 bytes) (the entire point of the pov tag is to break functionality in order to draw attention to the problem. Obviously I do not suggest to delete the redir, but to point it to the disambig page.) 5:11, 7 June 2009 TexasAndroid (47 bytes) (fix redriect. tag breaks redirect functionality. If the redirect is bad, please take it to WP:RFD. do not break it.) 2:47, 7 June 2009 Dbachmann (56 bytes) 2:46, 7 June 2009 Dbachmann (60 bytes) ({{disputed}}) 8:31, 7 June 2009 Dekimasu (47 bytes) (all links intend this article. please do not inhibit navigation.) 7:53, 7 June 2009 Dbachmann (45 bytes) (not the primary meaning) 8:24, 6 June 2009 Dekimasu (47 bytes) (no apparent consensus to redirect this to the dab) 8:24, 6 June 2009 Dekimasu (45 bytes) (moved Christian cult to Christian cult (disambiguation) over redirect: per objections to MDP move) 8:24, 6 June 2009 Dekimasu m (284 bytes) (moved Christian cult to Christian cult (disambiguation) over redirect: per objections to MDP move) 2:06, 6 June 2009 Dekimasu m (284 bytes) (moved Christian cult (disambiguation) to Christian cult: plain title, per WP:MDP and WP:DAB) 7:46, 26 May 2009 Dbachmann (284 bytes) 7:46, 26 May 2009 Dbachmann (45 bytes) (dab) 7:33, 26 May 2009 Dbachmann (47 bytes) (moved Christian cult to Christian new religious movements: widening scope) This case is in WP:RM process at [1] or [2] depending on the current state of the redirect. More information about the situation is available here: User_talk:Dekimasu#Christian cult move and text Also please warn other admins to not step into the same game a third time. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 20:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I have not been "gamed", I simply made a page move in accordance with the policy set forth at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. If there is a final showing of consensus as to where the article should be located, then the pages involved can be moved (or stay put) accordingly. I express no opinion on the merits of the title, except that it doesn't really matter a whit, since people looking for the topic will find it through the disambig page. bd2412 T 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Proposed WikiProject Mills I've replied to your question about the name of the proposed WikiProject. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Replaced: EP → EP Hi BD2412, I notice that you have updated the Extended play|EP link in Infobox Album, however this is not required (a function of wikipedia does this already), for example Album links to Studio album, and Demo album links to Demo (music). Regards Memphisto (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC) So far as I know, there is no automated fix for links to disambiguation pages. EP is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. bd2412 T 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC) AWB fixes You're creating a lot of Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) If the infobox is pointing to a disambig page, then it is pointing to the wrong page. This is unacceptable, and will be fixed wherever the error is found. bd2412 T 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Hi again BD2412, Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough but you still seem to missunderstand the parsing that goes on in Infobox Album: Within Infobox Album the line | Type = EP links directly to the Extended play page, not the EP page. A further example is the line | Type = Album which links directly to the Studio album page, not the Album page. Memphisto (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) My disambiguation sweep only catches pages that are linked to the disambiguation page. If they weren't linked to the wrong page, I wouldn't have seen them at all, so the problem has to be on the page (or in the template). Do the templates contain the linked phrase [[EP]]? bd2412 T 08:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Yes the Template:Infobox Album does contain the [[EP]] album type, but the infobox parses this to produce the appropriate infobox color and wikilink to Extended play (within Template:Infobox Album the album type EP, [[EP]] and [[Extended play|EP]] all link directly to Extended play), but the correct format in Template:Infobox Album should always be EP. Memphisto (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Hadouken! - Not Here To Please You I noticed you were the last person to edit this page, but you left it in a bit of a mess. The infobox is kind of broken. I'm not sure how to put it right, so I thought I'd just notify you in case you didn't notice the effects of your edit. Keytar Shredder (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, this anon edit is the one that broke the infobox. As it turns out, it works fine with the disambig fix I implemented. All fixed. bd2412 T 22:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, sorry to bother you when it wasn't your fault, but thanks for fixing the infobox. Keytar Shredder (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC) No bother, it's what we do here, right? bd2412 T 23:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC) AWB request at New Age Main article: New Age Hello, I saw your improvements to Orlando, Florida, thank you! Since I am just getting started with AWB, I was wondering if you could run it through New Age to fulfill a "To do list" request there. We are working to promote the article to GA, and I think that this would be a helpful edit. Thank you, nice editing! All is One (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) The only thing AWB picked up was the Image --> File bit. bd2412 T 01:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks again; it looks like you were able to find more corrections! All is One (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Busy You, sir, are among the hardest-working wikipedians. It's rare I don't see you banging away at stuff here. And good stuff too. Thanks and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC) SCOTUS-related thread Hey there. Any input here would be much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "Image:" → "File:"? In what sense is replacing "Image:" with "File:" a cleanup task? I thought the two were interchangeable and that replacing one with the other did not affect the appearance of the article. Eubulides (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC) It's on my list of automated repairs that I do while disambiguating, since the Image: link is essentially a redirect. Occasionally an edit on my list of pages to clean up will get caught up with nothing but those changes, but I'm not running around trying to change Image: links to File: links. bd2412 T 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Help Hi BD2412, I'm not able to correct in capital letter the surname of Antonio frixione; could you do it for me. Thanks.--Pio Box (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Done! :-) bd2412 T 08:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Hindukush Kafir people Hi BD, can you tell me why you restored this article? It was deleted in 2007, and appears to be still very much the same thing. I share the concerns of the editors who weighed in on the AfD and voted to delete. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I did not restore the article; another editor created a redirect at this title shortly after it was deleted; since the link was a blue link, I merely restored the deleted edit history, but left the redirect undisturbed. Some months later, an anonymous editor reverted the article back to a pre-deletion version. bd2412 T 05:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC) OK, I think I understand. (RHaworth told me you had restored it--this business is a bit complicated for me.) Does this mean the article is now back, up and running? How does it get to be deleted again, if that's even the proper question? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I only restored the edit history in case anyone wanted to go back and look at what had been deleted. The article itself may simply be reverted to the redirect as a recreation of deleted content. I can do that now, and if necessary I can protect it against further reversion to the deleted state. bd2412 T 05:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I think that that would be a good idea, seeing as how there's no substantial changes since the original deletion--and I would have done that myself, were it not for the fact that I'm afraid to delete content without discussion. I don't know the policy here very well, and this is fairly new to me. To me, it seems the article merits deletion but that's just me; I appreciate your time and your weighing in on this matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Depression A recent edit of yours to Auditory integration training replaced "[[depression]]" with "[[Depression (mood)|depression]]". Generally speaking, in medical articles talking about serious depression and suicidal tendencies, the intended interpretation should be "[[clinical depression]]" instead. I fixed this particular instance of the problem but thought you should know in case this sort of thing is programmable in your tool, whatever it is. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Indeed it is. I'll retool for the remainder of the run. bd2412 T 07:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC) agreed ... i agree with your last post RE: the fine line on the near-term direction for how legal Wikipedia articles should be expanded. I'm wondering if you've had a chance to see my (unrelated) proposal [3] at the village pump ... it can't be terrible enough of a proposal to have nobody speaking out in its defense ... Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 04:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Qwest Field Nice work on the recent clean up on Qwest Field!Cptnono (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I take no credit whatsoever, I did nothing but click a button. bd2412 T 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Disambiguating Genesis Hi, thanks for disambiguating "Genesis", but I don't think Genesis (band) is ever the intended meaning at Bible translations by language! ;-) +Angr 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, that shouldn't have happened - my editing tool is set up to link to Book of Genesis unless there are keywords there that would only come up with the band, guess that wasn't foolproof. bd2412 T 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Documentary hypothesis Hi, and thanks for your cleanup on documentary hypothesis. Unfortunately something has gone wrong with the diagram which illustrates the article - it's lost its legend. I have no idea how to fix it, and so I'd be grateful if you could have a look. PiCo (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks BD -- Thanks very much for your good work updating links on the parshah pages. -- Dauster (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC) You have done more excellent cleanup work on the parshah pages. You have provided a real service. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Query Just out of curiosity -- why are you changing "[[Image:" to "[[File:"? I saw you did this as Gottfried van Swieten. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, I am fixing disambiguation links. However, since Wikipedia no longer has an "Image" namespace, this is on my list of automated secondary repairs that I do while disambiguating. bd2412 T 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Harry Roseland Thank you for your help in salvaging this article from a premature prodder. Unschool 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Huh? I didn't do anything but fix a disambig link and a header cap. bd2412 T 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, I see. I had thought you were the one who had removed the prod. Thanks anyway for your work. Cheers. Unschool 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC) question Hi, you seem to know what you're doing, but I'm confused and curious. why would you do this? You created a redirect, then changed the link to go to that redirect, but used piping to keep the appearance the same. I don't see the benefit here. I don't see the harm, either, but there must have been a reason? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The benefit is that (in a general sense) it makes it easier to find and fix unintentional links to disambiguation pages when we can take intentional links out of the mix. bd2412 T 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not getting it, sorry. How does doing that "take intentional links out of the mix"? What mix? It says "(disambiguation page)" right next to the link, and the piping means that no additional information is provided to the user by the change. ? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, have you done much disambiguation work? The problem is that people writing articles frequently will write something like "the car has a nine volt battery" or "the thermometer contained mercury" - which are of course mistakes because battery and mercury are disambiguation pages. So we who work at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links are forever trying to chop down the hundreds of thousands of such errant links, which usually requires us to generate a list of pages that link to the "What links here" page. If a bunch of pages have intentional links to the disambig page, then having those link go through a redirect which makes it clear that the links to the disambig page are intentional, that saves us the time of looking through those links while trying to find genuinely bad links. This is so much of a problem that I've started a special project just to find and fix intentional links to disambig pages coming from other disambig pages. bd2412 T 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, I think I see. Because no one would accidentally link to Foo (disambiguation), you don't have to check those when fixing links to the disambiguation page Foo, saving time. I do some non-automated disambiguation work (indeed, that's why Channel One is on that page, and why 1 (disambiguation) is on my watchlist), so I understand the time savings. But what about the time expenditure? You still had to expend time and effort figuring out if the link I put in the disambiguation you changed was intentional? I may have to ponder that for a while, I might be wrong, but it seems like you're spending a nickel to save a nickel. In fact, if you have to create Foo (disambiguation) and make those changes, it seems like you're spending a nickel to save four cents. I guess the net benefit is long term, so that the next person who comes along in a year and fixes links to Foo that have built up in the interim doesn't have to do that same work again, yes? Anyway, thank you very much for the explanation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Yes - disambiguation link fixing is a perpetual chore, so this is for the very long term. bd2412 T 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Tidying Thanks for the clean-up on Elihu. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar message MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC) For your ceaseless and unending contributions to wikipedia, not simply to the articles to which I've contributed, but to all the pieces I see you constantly working on. You're one of the reasons that people come read the entries here. Thank you and enjoy the holiday. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks - I am absolutely humbled that you think that of me! bd2412 T 01:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Request Thanks for moving Barack (disambiguation) to its proper place. Can you move Talk:Barack (disambiguation) to Talk:Barack? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Done! bd2412 T 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Josef Tal Thanks for your corrections - Etan Tal (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC) David Ferguson (impresario) Hello BD2412: Some time ago you commented on the above referenced article that has a history of negative edits by two users who place several templates that I feel may be unjustified, especially since my recent work on the article. I would be most grateful if you could take another look at the article and comment on it. There are currently two discussions regarding the article, one is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, however I have left a post there requesting that the discussion move to the article's talk page at David Ferguson (impresario). Any thoughts you have would be most appreciated. Thank you. --deb (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Clinton Woodbury Howard Something appears to have gone wrong here. --Pascal666 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Something interesting Greetings BD, just dropping by, thought you may find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Legal threat by National Portrait Gallery, London of interest. Prodego talk 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, I'll see if I can address this tomorrow. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Whilst you're at it, please cast your eye over Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which I've just expanded. I've not touched the case opinion in the infobox, but given that there's now a lot more information as to what the judgement actually was (a point on which several people seem to be ill-informed), it needs at least to be double-checked. I'm also not happy about the prior content, that I've retained, that seems to be performing an original analysis of the Meshwerks v. Toyota and Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp judgements, rather than a sourced analysis. Schiffer Publishing vs. Chronicle Books probably belongs on your list, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC) A concern Hi there BD2412. I just wanted to let you know that you disambiguated to the wrong Pantheon article at Charles J. Suck. The "Pantheon" referred to is the Pantheon, London not the Pantheon, Rome, a fact evident from the context of the article. My impression is that you didn't actually read the article before editing it which concerns me. I notice from your edit history that you do a lot of disambiguation corrections which is clearly needed and useful to wikipedia. However, its very easy if you don't read carefully to disambiguate to the wrong page. I hope you will slow down and be more careful in future. All the best.Singingdaisies (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, I saw the reference to performing at Westminster Abbey there and presumed that the article referred to a concert series held at national landmarks. Very few Pantheon redirects are intended to go to the one in London, so I guess I was rather playing the odds. bd2412 T 04:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I can see how you might make that assumption by just reading that one sentence. However, the article is pretty clear that all that is known about Suck is his activites in London during a single decade. Traveling outside of London (to another country no less) would have warranted a more significant note in the article. Anyway I just thought I would let you know about the mistake and ask that you be more careful in future. Perhaps if a needed DAB correction isn't clear it would just be best to not guess and ask a question on the article's talk page. Cheers.Singingdaisies (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) IP pages I notice you are clearing down old IP pages. Handy tip - go into AWB normal and replace .* with nothing, tick the regex and singleline boxes, and untick "add replacements to edit summary". This one rule will replace the doubtless dozens you have now, and you will have a cleaner edit summary. Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC). If you were right here I'd hug you, man. bd2412 T 02:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Talk:Intercourse (book) Hello. Is there some reason why you deleted an article's Talk page? I'm not sure what was there before, but I was surprised to see that the page was deleted. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC) It was a one-character page. An anon had made a nonsensical comment on the page, and another anon had blanked the page except for a period, all back in 2007. bd2412 T 05:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I didn't know that. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Empty pages A while back, you asked me: Would it be possible to generate a list of ALL pages that contain, say, five characters or less (since there can be no meaningful page with fewer than that amount). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is possible.  :-) A surprisingly long list, accurate approximately as of the timestamp on this message, is at User:R'n'B/Empty pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Interesting. I should have specified more clearly, I was looking for pages with at least one (but no more than five) characters - there are many legitimate reasons why a page could be blank - and I'm equally interested in User and User talk pages that meet that criteria. But your list has enough to keep me occupied for a while. bd2412 T 00:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Heh; you should be focusing on remembering the difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel, instead of this stuff!  :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC) That stuff I have down. But I will be focusing on legal doctrines for the next few weeks! bd2412 T 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC) OK, now see User:R'n'B/Very short pages. For the bar exam, you don't need to know the difference between zero and one, but for Wikipedia, you do.  :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Barnstars & userboxen Please feel free to add to the collection here. Cheers! Is the above a typo or German? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC) It is neither; it is, rather, an attempt at humor. bd2412 T 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC) It would be funnier if it were capitalized and italicized, maybe with an umlaut or two thrown in. But that's just me! Cheers! Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC) How about now? bd2412 T 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Yes! I laughed out loud. It reminds me so much of those so-called English-language article titles all tarted up with funny-looking foreign letters by folks who want to show off their "erudition." GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Templates with red links As part of my continuing efforts to distract you from studying :-), I've updated the raw data for this project - the list of currently updated subpages is at User:RussBot/Templates with red links. (Actually, I did it using my new Toolserver account as a learning exercise to see how to use the database mirror access; there are a small number of false positives that I can't explain, but it looks fairly accurate overall.) Is there any reason not to delete the older subpages that are no longer valid? Also, how frequently do you think it would be helpful to update this on an ongoing basis? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Oh no, I'm not falling for that! :-) I'll address your questions after the Bar exam (I'll be home from the exam, which is in a rather inconveniently distant city, on July 31). bd2412 T 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Break a leg! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Mark Noske Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Mark Noske. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Referenced. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Income tax in the United States Dear ETO Buff, I have reverted your edits to Income tax in the United States, as they introduced false information into the article. It is easily demonstrable by well settled facts that you that whoever told you that the income tax does not apply to wages and, well, income, is either a completely stupid moron, or is a swindler trying to sell you something by deceiving you - either way, I implore you not to be fooled by such obvious idiocy. Regards, bd2412 T 01:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to worry about you reverting my edits, and I won't try to edit the article again. As far as whomever told me that the tax does not apply to individuals, it would be the latter of the two. The United States Congress is composed of politicians, and politicians are by nature, swindlers that try to deceive people. That's how they get elected and re-elected. Congress has never declared wages or salary earned by an individual as income, because the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1913, 1920, and 1921 that the word income refers to corporate gains, as stated in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909. Consequently, Title 26, U.S. Code (the Internal Revenue Code) does not state anywhere that an individual must pay a tax on wages and/or salary.ETO Buff (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Please be aware that the people who are in Congress now are no different in mindset from the ones who enacted the Sixteenth Amendment, or the ones who enacted the tax code. Do you really think that the people who took each of those steps had any intention other than taxing all the income they could reach? The Supreme Court certainly didn't labor under such an illusion, and it has held repeatedly that the Sixteenth Amendment was intended to reach every conceivable kind of income. bd2412 T 02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Defaultsort I've removed the {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag you added to Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008, since it really shouldn't be necessary (don't need to sort based on a different ordering of words in the title [as with a person's name], for example), and it was messing up the alphabetization of pages in Category:United States presidential primaries ("debates" sorted before "candidates"). - dcljr (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, it should be done that way for all the "candidates" articles as well, which would solve that problem. The problem is in Wikipedia's sorting standard, which puts all capital letters before any lowercase. bd2412 T 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC) But none of the relevant articles require sortkeys, AFAICT. Are you saying something is still not sorted correctly in that category? - dcljr (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Well the larger point is that all Wikipedia articles should be sorted that way, so that they always show up in order regardless of what categories they may fall in. bd2412 T 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Talk:DuPont Danisco There really isn't much point fixing dablinks on article talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC) It reduces the overall link load for disambig pages, and makes it easier to see the forest for the trees. bd2412 T 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Off and Good luck Good luck BDA, I'll keep an eye on your talk page for you, let me know if there is anything else in particular. I'm sure you will do well! :) Prodego talk 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks - I'm back now! bd2412 T 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC) WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum Hi bd2412, I've been pasting-transcluding the text from the following invite onto the talk pages of members of WP:LAW. Since you've been a yeoman/yeowoman law editor, I hope you'll share your feedback with me on making this project succeed. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/JD curriculum task force/invitation PS did you just take the bar? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Yep, but this was my second - much less stressful, having already passed one. bd2412 T 03:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC) great, congrats! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Congratulations are definitely in order. Well done. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Well, technically not yet - scores won't be released until October. But yeah, I think I passed. bd2412 T 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Wow, you're a piece of history. I was just adding WP:Hornbook invites to WP:Law-member talk pages and I stumbled upon this. I hope I'm still so committed four years from now! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC) PS Send me an email and tell me a bit about yourself, tell me a bit about your involvement in WP:Law, etc., and I'll send you something likewise. Were you one of the founders? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on that! bd2412 T 04:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Fixing disambig links in talk pages Why did you "fix" the disambig link at Talk:Current events/Archive 1? IMO talk archive pages shouldn't usually be edited except for minor formatting tweaks, as they're a record of an old discussion. Graham87 07:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I'd say the reasons at the top of this page where I explain why I fix disambig links on User pages apply equally, perhaps even more strongly, to pages in project space: We wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek"). It reduces link load to the "What links here" page. Although this would seem to be less of a concern with pages in project space, there are many, many projects that maintain lists of articles to be worked on and the like, so it is important to clean those up to. People do from time to time read what is in the archives, and if someone wrote in a page that was archived that "so-and-so was deported by the INS" it makes no sense for the link to INS to lead to the disambig page where it is clear that the entity under discussion is the Immigration and Naturalization Service; similarly, a project subpage listing government agencies that has a link to INS is better served if it links directly to Immigration and Naturalization Service, and finding such pages is greatly facilitated by cutting down the forest of bad links. bd2412 T 15:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with you that disambig links should be fixed everywhere, except in signed comments such as on talk pages. My opinion is probably conservative, but I don't think signed comments should be changed except for formatting; they're a historical record of what a person said. Disambiguating links in old talk pages can cause anachronisms, such as at Greg Page, an article I disambiguated yesterday. The article was moved to Greg Page (musician), so any old references to the "Greg Page" article were likely meant for the musician. But changing a link in a 2007 comment to go to Greg Page (musician) would be wrong because there was nothing at that disambiguated title until 2009. As for your argument about bad links, there's a namespace selector on the what links here page, so I don't think it's as much of an issue now. I think disambiguating articles should be a very high priority, followed by un-signed pages in other namespaces, then maybe fixe disambiguation links in signed comments. Graham87 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Doesn't a page move of the underlying page effectively change the signed comment anyway? If I properly linked to Greg Page in a discussion about the musician, and the underlying page was then moved, someone clicking through and reaching the disambig page might be misled to think that I had made the link carelessly. At the same time, the disambig page now has that discussion incorrectly linking to it. Also, these are piped links we're talking about, so the only time they are of any concern to what the original editor wrote is when someone actually follows the link itself. bd2412 T 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC) I'll concede that point; you make some good arguments. I'd never thought of a stale link misleading the reader of a talk page archive. I tend to think in terms of page history nuts like myself, and sometimes forget about the experience for your average user, who really doesn't care when a page was moved or reworked; they just want to get to the right link. Graham87 15:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Our first priority is to write a useful encyclopedia, which I think is best served by having links go where the reader intends to follow. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Intentional links to disambiguation page Hi, when you are adding such links, there is no need to pipe the link. In fact, the opposite is what is recommended by WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC) The links I'm piping are redirects (e.g. piping a link to Mercury through Mercury (disambiguation) in order to prevent link load to Mercury. The MOS is not violated because the name in the visible part of the link is the actual name of the page to which the link leads. bd2412 T 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC) MOSDAB is explicit: piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages with several exceptions noted. Piping the link to a redirect containing "(disambiguation)" is not among the exceptions (and the rationale you provided is not mentioned as an exception either). older ≠ wiser 18:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC) If it is not there, it is because nobody has thought about the problem. I'll add it now. bd2412 T 18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Just a quick thanks cleaning up Coral Ridge Baptist University, between the two of us it looks respectable now :-) (I get confused with references, and they were broken to start with!) Captain n00dle T/C 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Hey, thanks but all I did was push a button! bd2412 T 22:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC) MD and M.D. Per MoS and general usage, we should have MD not M.D. in our articles, thanks. Verbal chat 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "MD" is the postal code for Maryland - and the vast majority of edits I'm making are to links that already appear on the page as "M.D." bd2412 T 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC) then why not fix them to MD (Or BA, MSc, PhD, etc) when you fix the disamibig? Verbal chat 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I don't see why your tool wont let you fix both errors simultaneously. Is that a problem? Verbal chat 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Most links are already to M.D., so I've been making everything consistent (same with B.A. and M.A.). At this point, there are no more links to MD anyway. bd2412 T 19:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I don't see why you couldn't fix both problems at once, as soon as you were made aware. Thanks anyway. Verbal chat 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 'File:' vs 'Image:' I saw that you changed the logo on the Weston A. Price Foundation page from the latter to the former. Is 'Image' depreciated or are there cases where it should still be used over 'File'? Thanks. Argonel42 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The namespace is now "File:", so a link containing "Image:" is simply a redirect. This really doesn't matter, and I'm only changing these incidentally to other edits (mostly disambiguation fixes and minor spelling/grammar issues). bd2412 T 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks Thank you so much for improving the links and the footnotes in the article Phi Sigma Alpha, I have wanted to do what you did for the footnotes since some time now. I really apreciate your help in making the article better. Again thanks El Johnson (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC) No problem - just pushing a button here and there. bd2412 T 05:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Laurel Run (Pennsylvania) The disambiguator, (Pennsylvania), indicates this is a stream or river disambiguation, not a community. As there are quite a few streams & rivers in Pennsylvania by this name, the page is redirected to a disambiguation page listing these streams, albeit most of them are redlinks. Gjs238 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry about that - none of the river and stream links on the disambig page indicate that they are in Pennsylvania. bd2412 T 14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Your recent edits. Please get approval to do this. Blanking/deleting old talkpage warnings has proved controversial in the past. Please get consensus before doing a large run like this (if you have already got consensus I apologize, you might want to link to the discussion in your edit summary). --Chris 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) There is a discussion where consensus was reached that this is proper. I will find it and link to it. Please unblock immediately, I am in the middle of a number of significant edits. bd2412 T 14:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC) The block had already expired when you made that edit... --Chris 14:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Um, mind linking to the discussion before you restart AWB? --Chris 14:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I've put it in my edit summary - Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#IP talk pages. Didn't realize this was controversial at all - I did 18,000 of them in December. bd2412 T 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you, although at edit rating your going at it would be a good idea to get this approved at WP:BRFA (that way you can get a bot flag and not clog up the rc feed.) --Chris 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Can't be done by a bot, some judgment is required as to whether a page should not be blanked based on content. I'm going fast, but not so fast that I can't see what I'm doing! I should add, by the way, that about half the list I have on my queue right now is made up of IP talk pages containing five characters or less (from User:R'n'B/Very short pages). Almost all of these say something like "hi" or "asdf" or "wtf", and nothing else. bd2412 T 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC) You might want to move your talk page from /temp back to the main page, so you get new message notifications. Prodego talk 15:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Aaargh! The whole point of moving it was to not be bothered with message notifications. Guess that didn't work out so well. bd2412 T 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Heh, probably not. Prodego talk 21:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)