Hi, why did you remove the content that I spent time including? Did I miss something? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 04:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Citizens Advice is on my watch list. Two of your three disambiguations were wrong - Macmillan and Charity. (I've fixed them). Time to slow down perhaps? Pam D 05:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This user (User:Checkingfax) has been using Dabfix as a fire and forget tool. Just hit it, and dump everything it spits out into the dab page. Without sanitising. So adding loads of partial matches, double paragraphs, ... basically rubbish. I've warned him already, need to make him understand to stop it. -- Midas02 ( talk) 02:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Hi BD2412, you're a disambiguation expert so I figured I'd run by you a page move I might do. I just accepted Cosmic Girl (airplane) from AfC. There is also Cosmic Girl and a song called "Cosmic Girl" on the Year of the Dragon (Modern Talking album) (which is mentioned in the hatnote on Cosmic Girl). I'd like to move Cosmic Girl to either Cosmic Girl (song) or Cosmic Girl (Jamiroquai song), then create a disambiguation page at Cosmic Girl, since neither the song nor the airplane appear to me to be the primary topic. Does that sound okay from a disambiguation point of view? If it is, then I'll proceed with the page move and establishment of the new DAB page. /wia /tlk 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello :-), This change which you have made on many articles as of today, aka changing Persian Empire into Greater Iran, [1] is wrong. Greater Iran is an ethno-cultural region, and absolutely not the same as the Persian Empire (!). The concept is in some limited way related to it, but absolutely not the same. How did you even come up with it to change all of it just like that? :-) I hope you are able to revert all changes back through the same way you added it. That saves a lot of effort.. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 03:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a drive-by comment, but if you're making changes with AWB running in bot-mode, then you should be able to point to a discussion that approved those edits. Wbm1058 ( talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for at least unlinking the Greater Iran link. A further issue is, is that you've done that initial change (idk, looking at my watchlist) for maybe hundreds of articles, making it therefore impossible for me to go through all that and to give the exactly correct link. I agree that links are not a definite must have, but I'm convinced having Persian Empire as a link was still better than having no link at all. - LouisAragon ( talk) 06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Wikilinks shouldn't go to disambiguation pages. Since " Persian Empire" usually refers to the First Persian Empire (550–330 BC), I suggest that the dab link be replaced with that, rather than with Greater Iran. (I'm suggesting that the wording be First Persian Empire rather than Achaemenid Empire, based on the principle of least astonishment/confusion.) Softlavender ( talk) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I made about 100 bold edits before your objection. I know there are a lot of links to Gastrointestinal tract, and that can be seen as a big disruption for the dab-fix WikiProject, but I generally don't start something I'm not willing to finish, much as I hope for and appreciate any help I might get. I was taking a break to wait for any reaction to my bold edits. I'd appreciate if you could review them, briefly if you like, and let me know any issues you have with what I was doing. You can see from the history of that redirect that twice in the past I'd reverted attempts to change it; experience tells me that when there it minor "edit-warring" over a primary topic, especially from different editors over an extended period, that usually means there is no primary topic. So, I started disambiguating to confirm that, and the more I did, the more I became convinced that dab was the right way to go. Thinking about how to proceed. I'm estimating it will take me about two hours to write up a thorough and convincing proposal, and what's scary is that I had a tendency to underestimate tasks. I'm not particularly comfortable with "redirects for discussion" as a venue, as this isn't the usual type of simple and elementary redirect that page handles. Thinking it might be better to just do an RfC on Talk:Gastrointestinal tract and call in the WikiProject Medicine editors. If there's an aspect to this I'm not as confident in, it's that I'm not a medical expert. Anyhow, as I said it would take ~2 hours to write up my complete analysis and proposal, I'm just putting out a query to you now, before I put more time into it, for some quick feedback. Would you mind if I moved the dab I created over to Gastrointestinal tract (disambiguation)? Having that there would certainly help with any discussion, rather than having to point to a permalink of a reverted edit. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 05:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, can I ask for a contribution from you. I've created hundreds and maybe thousands of case pages for English law, US law, and have been working on EU law recently. This includes English contract law, English land law, English trusts law, US corporate law, etc, and many, many related cases. Just recently two issues have been brought up (1) whether there can be references with red links to further cases in the "See also" section, and (2) whether drop-down templates are allowed to have external links. We have been trying to get a template - like Template:ussc that would work for worldlii and bailii but I don't have the expertise. But a dispute has arisen, about whether (1) and (2) are allowed. This has been thrashed out on User_talk:Sphilbrick#User_Wikidea - and it has become increasingly personalised, about me, to the point where a 6 year old sanction that I'd forgotten has been reincarnated - that came from me (very regretably) insulting another user. But I don't want that to get in the way of what I know has been an incredibly useful set of tools, and way of editing the law pages. I'd be very grateful if you could offer your opinion. Here is are a couple of examples of a drop-down case menu - I raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. On Talk:Tulk v Moxhay I've posted about the red link issue. Here is another, of the most recent changes. I've done my best to explain the issues, but I'm worried that my stamina is getting thinner, and it's not working. I'm also worried the more I say, the more likely it is that I'll say something stupid. It's also exhausting because I could've been using the time - as I have done for many years - to actually create things rather than arguing about them. I've just posted the same thing on User:Bencherlite's page - but I hope you can offer your input as well. Wik idea 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Hey BD2412, before I get started working on updating various links related to StarCraft, I wanted to know how far you might be doing the same work, to avoid stepping on toes. There's quite a bit to look at here. (Secondary: Should StarCraft (video game)'s FA pages be moved to match?) -- ferret ( talk) 15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages - violationDisambiguation pages#Given names or surnames "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them." By applying disambiguation rules to list articles you are violating Wiki standards and disambig rules. Please stop. You have created great confusion. Please revert all the damage you have done to list articles. Example: List of people with surname Spencer [edit] Shortcut: WP:APOLIST The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List. Thank you. Jrcrin001 ( talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Links to disambiguation pages Shortcuts: WP:INTDABLINK WP:INTDAB Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports can not distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page. For example: In text or in a "see also" section: Incorrect: There are many places named Springfield Correct: There are many places named Springfield In a hatnote: Incorrect: Correct: , orWith few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for. And ... Applying disambiguation rules to list articles is a violation of Wiki standards and disambig rules. Example: List of people with surname Spencer [edit] Shortcut: WP:APOLIST The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List. The same applies to this list and other similar lists.
Disambiguation Instead of nitpicking one rule and not reading and applying other related rules in a logical manner you have created a non-consensus and edit warring. This obviously needs to be dealt with on a higher level. I will be referring to upward. In the mean time, wait for consensus. Thank you Jrcrin001 ( talk) 20:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Jrcrin001 ( talk) 21:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Hello BD2412; Happy Holidays. I saw that you moved to The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky the 3rd, and said "Note that "the" should not be capitalized in this circumstance". But... nobody actually brought that suggestion up in the actual move debate. If someone had, I'd have opposed it due to WP:NCCAPS, which says that words like 'the' shouldn't be capitalized "unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." I would argue "The 3rd" is clearly a subtitle here, and I imagine others would back me up. Would there be any complaints if I moved it to "The 3rd"? SnowFire ( talk) 02:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Brown, Chris listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brown, Chris. Since you had some involvement with the Brown, Chris redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈ discuss 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Per Three possible outcomes could you please reword "No consensus for any move at this time" at Talk:Case Closed to "not moved" or "consensus is to not move", or something like that? The current wording could be misconstrued as "no consensus" (for anything) when there clearly is consensus (to not move). Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Hello, doing some cleanup. Could you revert this please? That's not the way to propose a primary topic, he should file a request instead. -- Midas02 ( talk) 19:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, time of the month again. I don't have time to go into it, but care to revert this mess? User created a homonymous article, and starts moving the existing primary topic 'which is in the way'. -- Midas02 ( talk) 20:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Worst-case scenario has a new comment![]() Hi, BD2412, Could you please look at Talk:Phaedrus_(dialogue). I think that endless discussion is pointless, counter-productive, and should be terminated. Thank you, BlueMist ( talk) 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018). After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey. In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February. With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're blanking old user talk pages while a block is still active, like you did at User talk:204.10.222.54. May I ask that if you must blank "old" talk pages, to preserve the shared IP information, especially if it's a school. Thanks.– Gilliam ( talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You changed a huge number of copies of [[Graph (mathematics) to [[Graph (mathematics)]]{{dn|{{subst:DATE}}}}. Obviously to do this you have access to some search-and-replace software that I'm not using. So could you please change them again, correctly this time, to [[Graph (discrete mathematics)]] without the {{ dn}}? The issue is that the (mathematics) disambiguator was considered insufficient to disambiguate this topic from the graphs of functions, so the name was changed; see Talk:Graph (discrete mathematics). However, these links were mostly correct before the change and so globally replacing them with the new name should be mostly correct now, with only a small amount of manual cleanup, instead of the huge pile of cleanup you've left for those of us who care about these articles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know what you think about Rhine Valley. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, could you quickly confirm that you emailed us ( VRTS ticket # 2016010710001436) today? Regards -- samtar whisper 14:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, do you want to take a look at Draft:Gordon R. Hall - I think it's ready for article space.-- Thelema12 ( talk) 20:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, This user ignored your suggestion about Draft:Google Earth 3d cities in User talk:Unguriu and moved this page back into mainspace. Moreover, this is completely unreferenced directory. Please move it back to draft space and issue a warning to this user about proper referencing, since they ignore mine. A good half of the parent Google Earth article is a huge unreferenced catalog. I kept tagging and commenting about unreferenced, but they continue their ways. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, long time no talk. Hope you're doing fine. I was wondering; could your bot perhaps change the link in every article that contains the link Capture of Tbilisi and Gökçe war to Abbas I's Kakhetian and Kartlian campaigns? I just moved the page namely, as the previous title was incorrect. Its a very limited amount of articles, but just a bit too many to do it manually (or better said; to find them manually). Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from Wikimedia DC! February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events! Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org! Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from
the list. There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " I Like It Like That", People Like Us, &c., a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Hi BD2412, I have no faintest idea of why the above user is adding inappropriate images to other user's page but I've issued them a final warning. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 16:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed you've been keeping busy with Category:Language and nationality disambiguation pages (btw, was that discussed somewhere?), but were you aware there's also this one: Category:Demonyms? The latter used to be added to loads of dab pages, don't know if it still is, but there's definitely overlap. -- Midas02 ( talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Can you explain why you reverted this edit, please? If you do a web search for "Presidente Médici" you will get a mixture of the president and the two towns. The disambiguation page is a better use of Presidente Médici than redirecting, in my opinion. giso6150 ( talk) 12:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the places are named after what the man is called, in Portuguese. That doesn't imply that he is the primary topic in an English encyclopedia. Let's have a formal discussion: I think the correct thing is now a
WP:RM on the dab page to move it to the base name. (It could also be thought of as an
WP:RfD on the redirect, as that's implied in the same discussion, but I've been told in the past to do it this way in what I think was the same structure of question). I don't hold very strong views one way or the other, as long as every appropriate article is clearly linked (as the towns weren't under the previous setup), but we may as well get it settled. See
Talk:Presidente_Médici_(disambiguation)
Pam
D 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:United States church-state separation case law has been nominated for discussion![]() Hi, your comment on the merger of grass into Poaceae has made me wonder if the redirection of Grass would be better pointed to Grass (disambiguation), where a wider range of targets is offered. What do think? Plantsurfer 17:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. Since you participated in the Starz move request discussion in 2014, I wanted to notify you of a similar move request I initiated for premium network Showtime (TV network). Since no one has commented yet, I hope you might take a look at the discussion at Talk:Showtime (TV network)#Requested move 22 February 2016. Thanks very much. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Recently you replaced a number of instances of "TBS (TV channel)" with "TBS (U.S. TV channel)". In doing so you moved at least 59 articles into the non-existent category Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows. I've moved the articles back into Category:TBS (TV channel) network shows, which still had 32 members, but that category should probably be moved. The existing name seems a bit clunky though. Perhaps the new cat should be Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) programs, as "network" seems redundant, and these are all TV programs, not broadway shows. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you do me a favour? I've just WP:BOLDly moved The New Day to The New Day (wrestling) owing to the launch today of The New Day (newspaper). Normally I'd file a requested move but I was concerned so many people will be now typing in "the new day" today and get the wrestling team by mistake, that I thought I would just do it. However, I've realised that now leaves us with a lot of redirects - can you help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, why did you remove the content that I spent time including? Did I miss something? Nocturnalnow ( talk) 04:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Citizens Advice is on my watch list. Two of your three disambiguations were wrong - Macmillan and Charity. (I've fixed them). Time to slow down perhaps? Pam D 05:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This user (User:Checkingfax) has been using Dabfix as a fire and forget tool. Just hit it, and dump everything it spits out into the dab page. Without sanitising. So adding loads of partial matches, double paragraphs, ... basically rubbish. I've warned him already, need to make him understand to stop it. -- Midas02 ( talk) 02:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Hi BD2412, you're a disambiguation expert so I figured I'd run by you a page move I might do. I just accepted Cosmic Girl (airplane) from AfC. There is also Cosmic Girl and a song called "Cosmic Girl" on the Year of the Dragon (Modern Talking album) (which is mentioned in the hatnote on Cosmic Girl). I'd like to move Cosmic Girl to either Cosmic Girl (song) or Cosmic Girl (Jamiroquai song), then create a disambiguation page at Cosmic Girl, since neither the song nor the airplane appear to me to be the primary topic. Does that sound okay from a disambiguation point of view? If it is, then I'll proceed with the page move and establishment of the new DAB page. /wia /tlk 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello :-), This change which you have made on many articles as of today, aka changing Persian Empire into Greater Iran, [1] is wrong. Greater Iran is an ethno-cultural region, and absolutely not the same as the Persian Empire (!). The concept is in some limited way related to it, but absolutely not the same. How did you even come up with it to change all of it just like that? :-) I hope you are able to revert all changes back through the same way you added it. That saves a lot of effort.. Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 03:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a drive-by comment, but if you're making changes with AWB running in bot-mode, then you should be able to point to a discussion that approved those edits. Wbm1058 ( talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for at least unlinking the Greater Iran link. A further issue is, is that you've done that initial change (idk, looking at my watchlist) for maybe hundreds of articles, making it therefore impossible for me to go through all that and to give the exactly correct link. I agree that links are not a definite must have, but I'm convinced having Persian Empire as a link was still better than having no link at all. - LouisAragon ( talk) 06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Wikilinks shouldn't go to disambiguation pages. Since " Persian Empire" usually refers to the First Persian Empire (550–330 BC), I suggest that the dab link be replaced with that, rather than with Greater Iran. (I'm suggesting that the wording be First Persian Empire rather than Achaemenid Empire, based on the principle of least astonishment/confusion.) Softlavender ( talk) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I made about 100 bold edits before your objection. I know there are a lot of links to Gastrointestinal tract, and that can be seen as a big disruption for the dab-fix WikiProject, but I generally don't start something I'm not willing to finish, much as I hope for and appreciate any help I might get. I was taking a break to wait for any reaction to my bold edits. I'd appreciate if you could review them, briefly if you like, and let me know any issues you have with what I was doing. You can see from the history of that redirect that twice in the past I'd reverted attempts to change it; experience tells me that when there it minor "edit-warring" over a primary topic, especially from different editors over an extended period, that usually means there is no primary topic. So, I started disambiguating to confirm that, and the more I did, the more I became convinced that dab was the right way to go. Thinking about how to proceed. I'm estimating it will take me about two hours to write up a thorough and convincing proposal, and what's scary is that I had a tendency to underestimate tasks. I'm not particularly comfortable with "redirects for discussion" as a venue, as this isn't the usual type of simple and elementary redirect that page handles. Thinking it might be better to just do an RfC on Talk:Gastrointestinal tract and call in the WikiProject Medicine editors. If there's an aspect to this I'm not as confident in, it's that I'm not a medical expert. Anyhow, as I said it would take ~2 hours to write up my complete analysis and proposal, I'm just putting out a query to you now, before I put more time into it, for some quick feedback. Would you mind if I moved the dab I created over to Gastrointestinal tract (disambiguation)? Having that there would certainly help with any discussion, rather than having to point to a permalink of a reverted edit. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 05:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, can I ask for a contribution from you. I've created hundreds and maybe thousands of case pages for English law, US law, and have been working on EU law recently. This includes English contract law, English land law, English trusts law, US corporate law, etc, and many, many related cases. Just recently two issues have been brought up (1) whether there can be references with red links to further cases in the "See also" section, and (2) whether drop-down templates are allowed to have external links. We have been trying to get a template - like Template:ussc that would work for worldlii and bailii but I don't have the expertise. But a dispute has arisen, about whether (1) and (2) are allowed. This has been thrashed out on User_talk:Sphilbrick#User_Wikidea - and it has become increasingly personalised, about me, to the point where a 6 year old sanction that I'd forgotten has been reincarnated - that came from me (very regretably) insulting another user. But I don't want that to get in the way of what I know has been an incredibly useful set of tools, and way of editing the law pages. I'd be very grateful if you could offer your opinion. Here is are a couple of examples of a drop-down case menu - I raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. On Talk:Tulk v Moxhay I've posted about the red link issue. Here is another, of the most recent changes. I've done my best to explain the issues, but I'm worried that my stamina is getting thinner, and it's not working. I'm also worried the more I say, the more likely it is that I'll say something stupid. It's also exhausting because I could've been using the time - as I have done for many years - to actually create things rather than arguing about them. I've just posted the same thing on User:Bencherlite's page - but I hope you can offer your input as well. Wik idea 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Hey BD2412, before I get started working on updating various links related to StarCraft, I wanted to know how far you might be doing the same work, to avoid stepping on toes. There's quite a bit to look at here. (Secondary: Should StarCraft (video game)'s FA pages be moved to match?) -- ferret ( talk) 15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages - violationDisambiguation pages#Given names or surnames "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponymy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them." By applying disambiguation rules to list articles you are violating Wiki standards and disambig rules. Please stop. You have created great confusion. Please revert all the damage you have done to list articles. Example: List of people with surname Spencer [edit] Shortcut: WP:APOLIST The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List. Thank you. Jrcrin001 ( talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Links to disambiguation pages Shortcuts: WP:INTDABLINK WP:INTDAB Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports can not distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page. For example: In text or in a "see also" section: Incorrect: There are many places named Springfield Correct: There are many places named Springfield In a hatnote: Incorrect: Correct: , orWith few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for. And ... Applying disambiguation rules to list articles is a violation of Wiki standards and disambig rules. Example: List of people with surname Spencer [edit] Shortcut: WP:APOLIST The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List. The same applies to this list and other similar lists.
Disambiguation Instead of nitpicking one rule and not reading and applying other related rules in a logical manner you have created a non-consensus and edit warring. This obviously needs to be dealt with on a higher level. I will be referring to upward. In the mean time, wait for consensus. Thank you Jrcrin001 ( talk) 20:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Jrcrin001 ( talk) 21:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Hello BD2412; Happy Holidays. I saw that you moved to The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky the 3rd, and said "Note that "the" should not be capitalized in this circumstance". But... nobody actually brought that suggestion up in the actual move debate. If someone had, I'd have opposed it due to WP:NCCAPS, which says that words like 'the' shouldn't be capitalized "unless they begin or end a title or subtitle." I would argue "The 3rd" is clearly a subtitle here, and I imagine others would back me up. Would there be any complaints if I moved it to "The 3rd"? SnowFire ( talk) 02:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Brown, Chris listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brown, Chris. Since you had some involvement with the Brown, Chris redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈ discuss 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Per Three possible outcomes could you please reword "No consensus for any move at this time" at Talk:Case Closed to "not moved" or "consensus is to not move", or something like that? The current wording could be misconstrued as "no consensus" (for anything) when there clearly is consensus (to not move). Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Hello, doing some cleanup. Could you revert this please? That's not the way to propose a primary topic, he should file a request instead. -- Midas02 ( talk) 19:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, time of the month again. I don't have time to go into it, but care to revert this mess? User created a homonymous article, and starts moving the existing primary topic 'which is in the way'. -- Midas02 ( talk) 20:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Worst-case scenario has a new comment![]() Hi, BD2412, Could you please look at Talk:Phaedrus_(dialogue). I think that endless discussion is pointless, counter-productive, and should be terminated. Thank you, BlueMist ( talk) 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018). After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey. In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February. With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're blanking old user talk pages while a block is still active, like you did at User talk:204.10.222.54. May I ask that if you must blank "old" talk pages, to preserve the shared IP information, especially if it's a school. Thanks.– Gilliam ( talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You changed a huge number of copies of [[Graph (mathematics) to [[Graph (mathematics)]]{{dn|{{subst:DATE}}}}. Obviously to do this you have access to some search-and-replace software that I'm not using. So could you please change them again, correctly this time, to [[Graph (discrete mathematics)]] without the {{ dn}}? The issue is that the (mathematics) disambiguator was considered insufficient to disambiguate this topic from the graphs of functions, so the name was changed; see Talk:Graph (discrete mathematics). However, these links were mostly correct before the change and so globally replacing them with the new name should be mostly correct now, with only a small amount of manual cleanup, instead of the huge pile of cleanup you've left for those of us who care about these articles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd be curious to know what you think about Rhine Valley. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi BD2412, could you quickly confirm that you emailed us ( VRTS ticket # 2016010710001436) today? Regards -- samtar whisper 14:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, do you want to take a look at Draft:Gordon R. Hall - I think it's ready for article space.-- Thelema12 ( talk) 20:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, This user ignored your suggestion about Draft:Google Earth 3d cities in User talk:Unguriu and moved this page back into mainspace. Moreover, this is completely unreferenced directory. Please move it back to draft space and issue a warning to this user about proper referencing, since they ignore mine. A good half of the parent Google Earth article is a huge unreferenced catalog. I kept tagging and commenting about unreferenced, but they continue their ways. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, long time no talk. Hope you're doing fine. I was wondering; could your bot perhaps change the link in every article that contains the link Capture of Tbilisi and Gökçe war to Abbas I's Kakhetian and Kartlian campaigns? I just moved the page namely, as the previous title was incorrect. Its a very limited amount of articles, but just a bit too many to do it manually (or better said; to find them manually). Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from Wikimedia DC! February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events! Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org! Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from
the list. There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " I Like It Like That", People Like Us, &c., a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Hi BD2412, I have no faintest idea of why the above user is adding inappropriate images to other user's page but I've issued them a final warning. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 16:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed you've been keeping busy with Category:Language and nationality disambiguation pages (btw, was that discussed somewhere?), but were you aware there's also this one: Category:Demonyms? The latter used to be added to loads of dab pages, don't know if it still is, but there's definitely overlap. -- Midas02 ( talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Can you explain why you reverted this edit, please? If you do a web search for "Presidente Médici" you will get a mixture of the president and the two towns. The disambiguation page is a better use of Presidente Médici than redirecting, in my opinion. giso6150 ( talk) 12:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the places are named after what the man is called, in Portuguese. That doesn't imply that he is the primary topic in an English encyclopedia. Let's have a formal discussion: I think the correct thing is now a
WP:RM on the dab page to move it to the base name. (It could also be thought of as an
WP:RfD on the redirect, as that's implied in the same discussion, but I've been told in the past to do it this way in what I think was the same structure of question). I don't hold very strong views one way or the other, as long as every appropriate article is clearly linked (as the towns weren't under the previous setup), but we may as well get it settled. See
Talk:Presidente_Médici_(disambiguation)
Pam
D 15:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:United States church-state separation case law has been nominated for discussion![]() Hi, your comment on the merger of grass into Poaceae has made me wonder if the redirection of Grass would be better pointed to Grass (disambiguation), where a wider range of targets is offered. What do think? Plantsurfer 17:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. Since you participated in the Starz move request discussion in 2014, I wanted to notify you of a similar move request I initiated for premium network Showtime (TV network). Since no one has commented yet, I hope you might take a look at the discussion at Talk:Showtime (TV network)#Requested move 22 February 2016. Thanks very much. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC) Recently you replaced a number of instances of "TBS (TV channel)" with "TBS (U.S. TV channel)". In doing so you moved at least 59 articles into the non-existent category Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows. I've moved the articles back into Category:TBS (TV channel) network shows, which still had 32 members, but that category should probably be moved. The existing name seems a bit clunky though. Perhaps the new cat should be Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) programs, as "network" seems redundant, and these are all TV programs, not broadway shows. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you do me a favour? I've just WP:BOLDly moved The New Day to The New Day (wrestling) owing to the launch today of The New Day (newspaper). Normally I'd file a requested move but I was concerned so many people will be now typing in "the new day" today and get the wrestling team by mistake, that I thought I would just do it. However, I've realised that now leaves us with a lot of redirects - can you help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |