Hello BD2412, very impressive the amount of diligent clean-up work you did on this article. Just to let you know that I am going line by line and cleaning it up; will take sometime to complete it. Thanks for the helping hand. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Recently discredited long-time abuser now targeting Wiktionary
@BD2412: Now that Jamie Jackson is mentioned on the dab page, it makes a whole lot more sense to have his name redirect to this dab page, where the reader can actually find all the information Wikipedia has about him. Right now there are several articles with redlinks that naturally point nowhere. There is absolutely no reason to prefer a redlink over the redirect under these circumstances. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If we redirected Jamie Jackson (actor) to the disambiguation page, all of those links would automatically register as broken links, and someone would come through and "fix" them to something like "Jamie Jackson (Australian actor); a link that is intended to be pointed to James Jackson must be piped through James Jackson (disambiguation), per WP:INTDABLINK, so that it does not confuse the software into reporting an error on the page. If the subject is not notable enough to ever have an article, then it should not be linked anywhere. We do not use disambiguation pages to substitute for articles. They are merely navigational devices, like an index. bd2412T 01:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion before my "bold" revert of the move of Cronulla, New South Wales to Cronulla and creating the disambiguation page that the original mover believed unnecessary was at WP:AWNB. Unfortunately, I am on holidays with 100MB/day/device free wifi from the hotel. I ran out of free data after making the moves yesterday, and the "what inks here" page at the time hadn't updated so indicated I had not left a mess. Once I realised and had access to internet from a computer (not phone) again, I was in the process of redressing the remaining links to the disambig page when you undid my moves. I've fixed links to Cronulla, New South Wales, Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks and Cronulla railway station - indicating that the suburb is not the only thing people call "Cronulla". --Scott DavisTalk 12:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Where a page has a large number of incoming links, such a move should be carried out through WP:RM. Note that just because something is not the only thing that is called by a name does not make the name ambiguous (otherwise Australia and Sydney would also be disambiguation pages). Are there any uses of Cronulla that are not in some way references to the city? bd2412T 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
...and where there is a dispute, the status quo should remain until the dispute is resolved. The main article had been at Cronulla, New South Wales with a redirect at Cronulla for many years until about a week ago when a user set about moving many articles with a comment "no requirement for diambig" (sic). This was raised as a concern at WP:AWNB. My reverting this should not be viewed as "bold". That author has apparently been invited to discuss, with no response. I subsequently created the disambig page and put that at Cronulla, which could be regarded as "bold". Unfortunately, not being able to use popups to fix the links any more, my limited internet access has run out again tonight, and I am not in the mood to fight hard for the naming convention that most Australian towns and suburb article names are qualified by the state. All of the things I am aware of at the moment that are referred to as "Cronulla" have something to do with that place, although that is not universal evidence that the place is the primary use of the term (I suspect in this case, that would be the case, however). --Scott DavisTalk 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Prior to the creation of the disambig, was Cronulla a redirect to Cronulla, New South Wales? A red link? In some instances, it is appropriate for a base page name to redirect to a disambiguated name (as with Bothell -> Bothell, Washington).bd2412T 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Cronulla had been a redirect to Cronulla, New South Wales up until just over a week ago when TT1245 (talk·contribs) moved the article over the redirect, along with about fifty other places that had the same setup. He/she did not change any inbound links, commonscat templates, navboxes, or anything else, just moved the articles with the same (misspelled) description "no requirement for diambig". The two I had moved back, I replaced the redirect with a disambig page that included what I thought of first as the most widely-used use of the term, and any other uses I could think of or find as well. Failing to immediately fix the inbound links was an oversight on my part due to trying to use limited free hotel internet access. --Scott DavisTalk 13:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That is why it came up as a red flag on the disambiguation project. Whether the title should be moved, and whether a longstanding incoming redirect should be changed to a disambiguation page are two different questions. It is reasonable to take such a step where there is a clear absence of a primary topic, but in this case that absence is not so clear. bd2412T 13:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I did the right thing in both cases that I have addressed (except for failing to disambiguate all the inbound links immediately - I now realise I won't be able to do it properly until Wednesday). Minchinbury is clearer - the wine and the suburb were both named (in that order) after an older farm in that area, and "Minchinbury Champagne" had a national advertising campaign many years ago, so the word is familiar to most Australians (of my age or older, anyway), but very few outside of Sydney would know it is a suburb. Cronulla is both a well-known beachside suburb of Sydney (used for televised surf lifesaving competitions) and a well-known National Rugby League team (I didn't know it is the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks until making the disambig page - it's usually just called Cronulla Sharks). I'm happy to go back to the old arrangement where Cronulla is a redirect to the suburb article if that suits you. --Scott DavisTalk 14:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the page back since the previous status quo was to include the state, although I don't think it's necessary. The Cronulla Sharks are basically the "Sharks" of Cronulla (compare Sydney Roosters). bd2412T 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Apropos the Sharks, shouldn't the lead say "The Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks is an Australian professional Rugby league club based in Cronulla....." as per the infobox? Moriori (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Team, club, to-may-to, to-mah-to. I have no preference either way. bd2412T 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a question. Should the bot check every article to see if the link is dead, or should it just check those flagged as a dead-link?—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose in an ideal world it would check every link, since a dead link is no good even if it isn't tagged. However, we could start with the tagged links. The proposal at the Village Pump is not limited to tagged links. bd2412T 14:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I can attempt to have the bot detect a dead link, will not be accurate a lot, but it can certainly help. I just needed to know the scope of editing for the BRFA. I do need to know after all if the bot is editing 130,000 or several million. The bot will take a bit of time to create, and the run will probably take several hours to several days. But it's doable. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, put it this way - if the bot accidentally changes a working link into an Internet Archive link for the same target page, then nothing is lost. bd2412T 15:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Give me a few days, to put a decent one together. I need to study the Wayback API.—cyberpowerChat:Online 10:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
S-protect or T-protect? I have S-protected. Cheers! bd2412T 19:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protect is fine. This is an on and off switch and isn't as critical as how the bot should be rampaging across Wikipedia and the internet, considering that this bot is somewhat of a crawler. PS, check out the BRFA for Cyberbot II to see status updates.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will. This is going to be good. bd2412T 02:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I left some questions on BRFA. They're for anyone to answer, but I feel you are more qualified to answer them. Feel to respond with inline responses.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I left a few inline responses requesting clarification for some of your responses.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
In case you aren't watching the first trial went better than expected.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Connan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello BD2412,
I need your help. I realized that the letter E of the surname Esseno is tiny. How can you do? Thank you very much. --Brainstorm76 (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Since I see in the page history that this page has previously been deleted as advertising/promotion, I have deleted and protected the page, so this article can never be created again, unless there is a consensus to do so in a request made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Cheers! bd2412T 15:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. You have new messages at AKS.9955's talk page. Message added 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
bd, would you please take a look at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co. near the bottom and then advise me what you think I should do about this issue. I think it will become recurrent. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Commented there. Cheers! bd2412T 03:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit canvass-y, but whatever. BD2412 I don't know if you reviewed the discussion at PraeceptorIP's talk page, but I've raised concerns with him about WP:SELFCITE, WP:OR, and other ways that experts can go astray in WP, as described in our helpful essay WP:EXPERT. It is great to have someone with PraceptorIP's wealth of experience here, but in my view he needs to get better grounded in our basic content policies as well as what COI means here in WP, which is different than it is out in the RW. I encountered him first at the Monsanto v Bowman article and again at the GSK article, both of which were already on my watchlist. I am not following him around. Some further background - I divide my time here between working on health content with [{WP:MED]] and biotech (including IP around that) and WP: COIN, where I deal with a lot of experts who want to use WP to promote their own ideas or publications (along with editors who have more commercial COI issues of course). Sometimes editors I try to work with are very resistant, and sometimes things go quite smoothly. PraceptorIP does appear to contribute a lot beyond citing his own work and ideas, but his editing appears to include some of that. After our discussion at his talk page, PraeceptorIP was good enough to propose re-adding his own article on the Talk page of the Bowman article instead of re-adding it directly, so things are moving in the right direction. I am hopeful they will keep going in that direction. I don't plan to open a case at COIN at this time to get more community input, but may do so in the future. If I do, I will raise it and recuse myself, since we've had a content dispute and it is not helpful to mix discussions of COI with content disputes (that may be part of the communication problem here). Anyway, that's the story from my end.
Oh, and if you could warn GregJackP to stop denigrating me on talk pages, I would appreciate that. (I can provide diffs if you like but you can see it at Bowman, where you weighed in) He and I got off to a bad start at the Bad Elk v. United States but worked through the issues there; I forgot all about it but he's apparently still upset about it. Thanks for your time, and best regards Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clear something up, I notified everyone that had participated in the discussion on the talk page with a neutral statement. That's not canvassing. As far as better grounded? Don't make me laugh. Secondly, I work on legal articles, as you know, and I know how to write them in a neutral manner. That's the only dog I have in this hunt. I'm not a GMO advocate, as Jytdog admits that he is, all I'm trying to do is to make sure that the article does not misstate the law or the legal debate. As far as the Bad Elk (and Plummer v. State) article, I don't respond very well to people who do not understand the law or WP policies telling me what I have to do to satisfy their need for control. BTW, he was alone against the consensus there too, despite forum shopping during the dispute. I didn't care for his disruptive editing then, and I don't care for it now. GregJackPBoomer! 20:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah, he said this, he said that, I don't care. You're both generally good editors, so work it out. bd2412T 21:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks bd2412 but really - look at what GregJackP is doing now at the Bowman talk page - instead of working out content he is just attacking me - working backward through each comment, the last one finally seems to indicate we are done with the content, but is laden with personal attack, this is just attack, this is just attack, this is just attack, this is just attack. This just gets in the way of working and isn't pleasant. It classically violates WP:TPG. His conviction - and statement of conviction - that I am incompetent to edit in matters of law - and demanding i bow to self-identified lawyers - is also completely inappropriate in WP. And he does that even in his comment above. I know that WP:CIR and I am quite competent in various aspects of law, as my edits show.
Please warn him to discuss content, not contributors. I don't want to drag this to a dramah board but if the behavior continues I will. Please help us avoid going down that path by warning him that his behavior is not appropriate. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
And the link that GregJackP cites, does not show that I advocate for GMOs. It shows that I work on making articles NPOV on a very controversial issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I commented on the reliability of the source. I am not getting into the interpersonal conflict. I have more important things to work on, and I'm working on them. bd2412T 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
. OK< thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Bowman v. Monsanto Co.? I just got through with a substantial series of edits and want to make sure that I have not misstated any of the material. I'm not an IP lawyer, so I may have missed something. I asked PraeceptorIP to look at it also. Thanks. GregJackPBoomer! 01:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:GallowsPole-Paige-Plant.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Addressed. Cheers! bd2412T 14:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, I kindly ask the release of the page Alessandro Esseno, and the possibility of being able to write again, with the help of someone. Thank you very much. --Arizzium55 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Great work with that - many thanks. Yes, the same applies to the categories. Checking a few at random, they just have the template at the top of each page, so no useful navigation reason to have it on the category as well. Thanks again. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.
bd, I would like to get a {{Bluebook}} template created to do the following:
This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.
Could you please tell me how to go about getting that done? PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. It will now do exactly that. Cheers! bd2412T 22:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out Wiktionary deletion policy because of an WP:RFD discussion that came up. I've never dealt with wiktionary before, so I'm figuring it out from scratch. Since I recognized your name at wikt:WT:RFD, I figured you might be a good person to help me out. The discussion is at: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 1#🏯. I'd appreciate it if you'd read my analysis there and help steer me in the right direction. Thanks. --Tavix(talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
bd, I lost yr eml. Do you want to give me an eml address so that I can send you offwiki personal comments? You can get me at rstern(at)law.gwu.edu. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's a link under the tools menu on the left to "Email this user". As long as you have email enabled, you can email me that way. Cheers! bd2412T 01:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This page has {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} at the top to signal that links to DAB pages are OK, even without the explicit "(disambiguation)". I suppose the explicit "(disambiguation)" could be useful if the [[xx]] page ceases to be the disambiguation page at some point, but it doesn't seem worth the bother. --Macrakis (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:INTDABLINK needs to be used to keep the page from showing up on lists of errors needing to be repaired. It will show up there no matter what the bot situation is, and will waste the time of dozens of disambiguators who try to fix the links. Please just follow WP:INTDABLINK. Cheers! bd2412T 12:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for restoring these pages to the last consensus-backed titles. I would think a procedural close at Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 5 July 2015 would be called for, though I'll leave that to you. If you do close it, it might be helpful to say how long should pass before a new request (no prejudice? wait a few months?), since there are clearly editors unhappy with the current situation. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with BDD, thanks for handling this. I think at this point, it will be best to just close the RM as it will be pretty indecipherable to an incoming closer (ie, people !voting "support" want the move at "Tagalog", which is now its title again). Unfortunately it's one of those cases where one careless editor made a lot of trouble for everyone.--Cúchullaint/c 15:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, you completed disambiguation of Rayleigh, great! I was stumped on the Wave field synthesis link to Rayleigh, which was labelled Rayleigh II, and which you have directed to Rayleigh–Jeans law. I puzzled whether it meant Lord Rayleigh's son, also a physicist. And I searched on "Rayleigh II" within several of the Rayleigh articles. I suppose you must know stuff that I don't, for you to know to direct it to that law. But, the Rayleigh-Jeans law article doesn't mention "Rayleigh II". Could you say it is an "also known as" for the article title, and add that to the top of the article? And/or is it the 1905 version, rather than the 1900 version, of Rayleigh's work, and it could be mentioned after sentence: "A more complete derivation, which included the proportionality constant, was presented by Rayleigh and Sir James Jeans in 1905" ? I am just grasping. But I assume someone called it "Rayleigh II" at the wave field synthesis article for a reason, and now a reader would follow the link and not see the reason.
You do great work. cheers, --doncram 16:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Rayleigh II is confusing because it could refer to either the person or the second iteration of the wave scattering law. See, e.g., Ahmet Kondoz, Tasos Dagiuklas, Novel 3D Media Technologies (2014), p. 213, noting the use of the Rayleigh I and Rayleigh II equations for plotting wave scattering. bd2412T 16:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I was just surmising (incorrectly) that Rayleigh I and Raleigh II refer to the father and son, that was just a first, wild guess. The father and son have different names, and they are 3rd and 4th barons of Raleigh, so I figured my guess was wrong.
You do seem to understand a lot. If you understand enough for you to add mention the Rayleigh I integral and the Rayleigh II integral into the article, I hope that you would. Do they correspond to the "classically derived Rayleigh–Jeans expression" and "the Rayleigh–Jeans law in the limit of small frequencies" mentioned in the article? Those terms follow expressions which are not the integral formulas in the Kondoz-Dagiuklas book though. I guess all this is maybe something to mention at the Talk page, pointing out the wave field synthesis article's usage and calling for someone else to identify what the Rayleigh II is. Anyhow, thanks for the chat, have a good day. --doncram 17:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I am going to ask at the Math project. bd2412T 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. The outcome was wrong, though. Next time. bd2412T 19:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed everything, but please avoid making disambiguation links in the future. bd2412T 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are quite appropriate for adjectives. This table is a mess. Yours aye, Buaidh 22:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Where an intentional link is made to a disambiguation page, please follow WP:INTDABLINK, to prevent this from showing up as an error in the disambiguation reports. Cheers! bd2412T 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd made a conscious decision not to link current countries ... but I'm not going to revert you. I thought we could do without the sea of blue in that column. Thanks for taking an interest, anyway! PamD 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought you just might not have gotten around to it. I don't think the links crowd the page, and to me it looks weirder without them. This is particularly the case for entities like Denmark–Norway (which people might not realize was a single unit) and the Habsburg Monarchy. Having just some links seems patchy to me. bd2412T 17:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi BD2412. Thanks for closing the RfC at Talk:Derry. I noticed that some comments were added to the section after the closure. I don't know whether or how much of a problem that is, and whether any action needs to be taken to move those comments, but I thought I'd let you know. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
They are fine. They do not change anything in the big picture. bd2412T 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
